BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 8 January 2013 (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Indeterminate Sentences

Kate Green: What the Government’s policy is on the use of indeterminate sentences for public protection.

Chris Grayling: The widely criticised indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection was abolished on 3 December. It has been replaced by a new regime of mandatory life sentences, which apply to anyone who is convicted for a second time of a very serious sexual or violent offence, and tough extended determinate sentences.

Kate Green: In a written answer published on 19 October, I was informed that 193 prisoners over the age of 60 were serving indeterminate sentences for public protection. Approximately 25 elderly high-risk prisoners are expected to be released in Greater Manchester, some of whom will have higher than average social care needs as well as a need for specialist supervision. What discussions have been taking place with local authorities about where those individuals are to be accommodated, and who will bear the cost?

Chris Grayling: As the hon. Lady will know, the probation service regularly engages in detailed discussions with local authorities to try to establish the right ways of dealing with individual offenders. In many parts of the country there is integrated offender management, which is designed to ensure that we provide the best possible support. My plans for a rehabilitation revolution will step up the support provided for such people, and will, I hope, ensure that we address issues such as where prisoners are to live after leaving prison.

Nick Gibb: On 25 April 2010, Irene Glen from Littlehampton opened the front door to her former partner Sean Benn. He came in and, with a kitchen knife, stabbed Mrs Glen 10 times. She was flown to London for several hours of emergency surgery, and mercifully survived. Sean Benn was convicted of wounding with intent, and was sentenced to detention in a secure hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. On Thursday, a tribunal will consider whether to release him, a mere two years after that horrific attack. Mrs Glen believes that he may attack her again, and is terrified for her life. What can she do to prevent Sean Benn from being released, and what can we do to protect my constituent?

Chris Grayling: I shall look carefully at the case to which my hon. Friend has referred. Matters relating to release are handled independently by the different tribunals and assessment services that are there to decide whether it is safe to release a prisoner, and I should obviously be concerned to hear of circumstances in which a potentially dangerous prisoner was to be released. My Department will certainly be able to discuss with my hon. Friend whether there are any ways in which we can help either to support his constituent or to influence the process, should that prove necessary.

Age of Criminal Responsibility

Barry Sheerman: What consideration he has given to reviewing the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales.

Damian Green: The Government are not considering reviewing the age of criminal responsibility. They believe that young people aged 10 and over are able to differentiate bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing.

Barry Sheerman: That was a very disappointing answer. The fact is that in England and Wales we lock up more children than any other country in Europe. We imprison four times as many young people as Portugal, 25 times as many as Belgium, and 100 times as many as Finland. I make no apology for the fact that it was in 1999 that we changed the law to reduce the age of criminal responsibility from 14 to 10, but is it not about time that we accepted the recommendation of people throughout the civilised world that it should be at least 12? Why do the Government not agree with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who believes that that change must come about?

Damian Green: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman found my reply disappointing. I think it entirely appropriate to hold children aged 10 and over to account for their actions, and to allow the criminal courts to decide on an effective punishment when an offence has been committed. It is important to communities, and particularly important to victims, to know that young people who offend will be dealt with appropriately.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that restorative justice, a flagship policy of this Government, is particularly effective for children around the current age of criminal responsibility?

Damian Green: I agree, and that is why I made the point to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that it is for the courts to decide the appropriate punishment. That might well be the use of restorative justice, which is particularly effective with young offenders.

Philip Hollobone: I declare my interest as a special constable with the British Transport police. Although the age of criminal responsibility is 10, effectively many police officers will not do anything in the case of a miscreant under the age of 16. May we have a change to the law, whereby if a police officer were to issue a fixed penalty notice for somebody under 16 who committed antisocial behaviour or a crime, it would be served on their parents or guardians so that they would ensure that their children behaved properly?

Damian Green: I am always interested by the expertise my hon. Friend brings to this issue, given his welcome work as a special constable. I shall certainly consider his suggestion seriously.

Dangerous Driving

Mark Pawsey: What steps he is taking to address harm and injury caused by dangerous drivers.

Damian Green: The Government have legislated to create a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. The new offence is subject to a five-year maximum prison sentence and was implemented on 3 December 2012.

Mark Pawsey: My constituents, Mr and Mrs Galli-Atkinson, who have campaigned for safer roads for some time, point out that in cases in which a driver causes death while over the drink-drive limit but in which there is no evidence of careless driving, the only charge available to the police carries a maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment, a fine and disqualification from driving. The law should reflect the fact that driving under the influence of drink or drugs severely impairs a driver’s reaction time. Given that the Crime and Courts Bill is currently going through Parliament, will the Minister find time to address that important issue?

Damian Green: I know that my hon. Friend has rightly campaigned hard on this subject. I am not entirely persuaded that there is such a gap in the law. If the driving is below the appropriate standard, a variety of offences are available, including causing death by careless driving while under the influence. If the driving had not been affected, it would not be right for the driver to be charged with anything more than a drink-driving offence.

Christopher Leslie: Is the Minister not aware, however, that there is still a problem, in that the penalties imposed by the courts for driving without insurance are sometimes lower in cost than buying that insurance in the first place? Will the Minister take steps to address that anomaly, as too often there is a perverse incentive for young drivers in particular to avoid paying their car insurance, taking the risk that the penalty will be less than the costs involved?

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. The cost of insurance is one reason we have just published a consultation paper on whiplash claims, in which fraud is most commonly committed, an effect of which is to drive up insurance costs for respectable drivers. That could conceivably encourage the bad behaviour that he suggests.

Margaret Ritchie: In reference to the Minister’s comment about whiplash claims, false claims do much to discredit and undermine those who suffer real injuries as a result of dangerous driving. In Northern Ireland, where the costs are much higher than in comparable regions in Britain, what discussions have taken place with the Minister of Justice regarding whiplash claims?

Damian Green: I am sure that the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland will have seen the Government’s consultation document and I hope that he, along with Members of this House, will welcome it. I would obviously always be willing to speak to him further about it.

Probation Service

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the probation service.

Jeremy Wright: As Minister with responsibility for probation, I have had the opportunity to see the hard work and dedication of many probation officers and I do not think the probation service always gets the credit it deserves for helping to keep the public safe. Probation officers will continue to have a key role. However, reoffending rates are still too high and we need to explore new ways of delivering rehabilitation and reducing reoffending.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the most recent report from the inspectorate of probation, published today, which shows that vulnerable and troubled young people are not being adequately supported by the care or probation system. How will the Minister respond to the serious resource issues raised in that report?

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to that report, which deals with the interests of children who have been in care. We will study it in detail and respond accordingly, but the report makes the point that this is not simply about money—it is also about attitudes. A great deal of work needs to be done to ensure that we meet our very important responsibility to those children who have been in care, who have particular requirements. We will consider the report and respond accordingly.

Crispin Blunt: One of the particular pleasures that I had as Minister with responsibility for probation was to attend the awarding by the British Quality Foundation of the gold medal to the probation service. I know that the Minister and his colleagues are preparing exciting proposals with great opportunities for the development of probation as a profession, but further measures will be needed to support that, which I hope he will consider alongside the proposals that he will announce in due course.

Jeremy Wright: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows of what he speaks. The important point is that we need to recognise the achievements and the contribution of probation officers, alongside making sure that we introduce new and good ideas into the process of rehabilitating offenders. I will consider carefully what he has said and we will look at what we can do along the lines that he suggests.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Minister confirm that it is his Department’s intention to brief the press this afternoon at 4 o’clock on possible privatisation of the probation service, a day in advance of advising the House?

Jeremy Wright: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see exactly what we propose and exactly when we propose it, but what he has just described is not going to happen.

Rehman Chishti: Does the Minister agree that the new court and probation service delivery model, by which probation staff have to provide a statement on the day that a plea is taken, ensures that we get a swift, transparent response on the day?

Jeremy Wright: I certainly agree that we want to ensure that justice is swifter and that where possible the probation service produces reports as quickly as it can. My hon. Friend will know from his experience of practising in the courts that probation officers often produce reports in very short time frames, which I am sure is of great assistance to the courts and to be commended.

Sadiq Khan: I echo the words of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt)—there cannot be many times when I have said that—and the Minister who commended the probation service for its fantastic work, which was recognised last year by the British Quality Foundation gold medal for excellence. Can the Minister confirm that the much delayed probation review will not be announced this week, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), and will not lead to the break-up of the excellent probation service or its privatisation?

Jeremy Wright: This is a good time of the year for patience and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to be patient. It will be important in what we do, first, to recognise the key role of the probation service, as he says, and secondly, to do better than we have done on reoffending. When, as now, 50% of those released from prison reoffend within 12 months and a third of those on community orders do the same, we must look at ways of doing better.

Whole-life Tariffs

Henry Smith: If he will make it his policy that courts will continue to have the power to impose whole-life tariffs for the most serious offences.

Edward Leigh: If he will make it his policy that courts will continue to have the power to impose whole-life tariffs for the most serious offences.

David Amess: If he will make it his policy that courts will continue to have the power to impose whole-life tariffs for the most serious offences.

Jeremy Wright: There is settled policy in England and Wales that some offences are so grave that they are deserving of imprisonment for the rest of the offender’s life for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. The Secretary of State and I take the view that whole-life tariffs should remain an option for sentences in appropriate cases.

Henry Smith: What other measures has my hon. Friend taken to ensure that appropriately long sentences can be given by the courts, particularly for violent and serious sexual offences?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend is right to be concerned, particularly about those types of offences; they give the public a good deal of concern, too. That is why this month we have implemented new sentences, which will allow for a mandatory life sentence for a second serious violent or sexual offence, and for extended determinate sentences for the first or the second offence which is a serious offence and merits it. Those are new sentencing proposals produced by this Government to reflect exactly what my hon. Friend has identified.

Edward Leigh: There was some concern that the measure might be struck down by human rights legislation. One of the reasons for all the alienation of people from politics is that they feel that we are no longer in control of our destiny. Will the Minister today proclaim that we are the free Parliament of a free people and it is here that the liberty of the individual is determined, not by some foreign court?

Jeremy Wright: The good news for my hon. Friend is that on this issue at least we are in agreement with the European Court of Human Rights, because it has upheld our view that whole-life tariffs are an appropriate disposal in the right cases. Let me make it clear to him—I think that I also speak for the Secretary of State—that for as long as we are Ministers in the Department, its policy will remain that whole-life tariffs should be available.

David Amess: In the light of what my hon. Friend has said, will he reassure me and the British public that under this Government the criminal justice system will treat convicted criminals in a firm but fair way?

Jeremy Wright: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are doing two important things in that regard: first, toughening up the sentencing regime so that the right people go to prison for the right length of time; and secondly, ensuring that there is more emphasis on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. That is the way to avoid the misery that communities incur as a result of reoffending, to avoid making more victims and to avoid extra cost to the taxpayer.

Jenny Chapman: Simon Crisp groomed boys on the internet and possessed and distributed indecent images of children, and earlier this year he was
	sentenced to an indeterminate sentence. However, had he been sentenced after 3 December, he would not have received an indeterminate sentence, because the Government have abolished them. Does the Secretary of State think that it is right that, thanks to the Government’s decision, there will no longer be anything anyone can do to keep an offender in prison at the end of their sentence even if they are still a risk to children?

Jeremy Wright: Extended determinate sentences, which we have brought in to replace IPPs, can include an extended period of supervision at the conclusion of a custodial period. We have done that to deal specifically with cases that cause great concern, such as sexual and violent offences. The hon. Lady is right to be worried, but she is wrong to suggest that no provision has been made to replace what IPPs did.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

Marcus Jones: What steps he is taking to reform the rehabilitation of offenders by supporting people leaving prison who have served less than 12 months.

Chris Grayling: It might be helpful if I put the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) and other Opposition Members out of their misery and told them exactly what we are planning to do. As the House knows, I intend to apply payment by results to the majority of rehabilitation work conducted with offenders in the community. This rehabilitation revolution will stimulate innovation and open the delivery of services to a wider range of providers with the skills needed to change an individual’s behaviour and reduce offending in future. I aim to extend those services to cover those sentenced to less than 12 months in prison. I intend to hold a series of initial discussions with stakeholder groups tomorrow and to publish early in the new year a detailed consultation paper that will serve as both a response to the previous consultation paper and a direction for our reforms.

Marcus Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. How will he work with local authorities, social housing providers and other partners to ensure that suitable housing is available for ex-offenders?

Chris Grayling: One of the things that I believe are very important as we build a system of mentoring for former offenders is that there should be someone working alongside them to ensure that they have somewhere to live when they leave prison. Of course, the Department has worked closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government to address homelessness with a strategy that contains a number of measures to help ensure suitable accommodation for offenders, such as flexibility in the universal credit system so that short-sentence offenders do not lose their tenancies when they spend a short time in prison.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that prisoners should be met at the gates by mentors—I am not sure whether he is volunteering to be one of them. Some 35% of prisoners have a drugs problem. Has he seen the latest Home
	Affairs Committee report, which suggests that prisoners should be compulsorily tested on exiting prison so that they can be given the support they need in the community as he has so rightly recommended?

Chris Grayling: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s sentiment with regard to drugs, prisons and when offenders move back into the community. I have spoken to prison officers who are deeply frustrated by the fact that treatment begins in prison but then stops at the prison gate. I can assure him that one of the things we are working on is ensuring that the conditionality we introduced to surround our rehabilitation revolution will mean that treatment flows through the prison gate and continues after the prisoner has been released.

Derek Twigg: Can I ask the Secretary of State specifically about what he and his Department are doing to support former members of the armed forces who are in prison? I am thinking particularly of those who have served on operations. How is the Department helping them with rehabilitation and making sure that support mechanisms are in place so that they can get on with their lives and do not reoffend?

Chris Grayling: I regard it as a national shame that so many former members of our armed forces are in our prisons. I have discussions with the Minister with responsibility for veterans issues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I see the issue as something that we need to take forward in the next few months. It is certainly sitting high in my in-tray as a priority for us all.

Reoffending

Jeremy Lefroy: What steps he is taking to tackle reoffending.

Chris Grayling: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave a few moments ago. We intend to apply payment by results to the majority of rehabilitation work conducted with offenders in the community as soon as we can.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for the one he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones). Reoffending is to some extent also linked to lack of preparation prior to release. As a member of an independent monitoring board, I noted that we placed a great emphasis on induction and less on “outduction”—preparation prior to release. What is my right hon. Friend doing in that respect?

Chris Grayling: Our aim is to deliver a service that flows through the prison gates. One of the failings of the current system is that, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said a moment ago, there is not enough co-ordination between what happens in prison and after prison. The contracts that we build will begin while an offender is in prison and will see them through the prison gate to ensure that the continuity to which my hon. Friend refers is present.

Andy Sawford: Given the abject failure of the payment-by-results programme that the Secretary of State introduced in his previous role as Minister with responsibility for employment, does he not recognise how incredibly worried people in Corby and east Northamptonshire will be that his new privatisation —the new payment by results—will be equally damaging for offender management?

Chris Grayling: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the Work programme. About 200,000 people who were long-term unemployed have started work through that programme. The Labour party has been utterly disingenuous in how it has argued around the figures. There are people with first-rate expertise out there, particularly in the voluntary sector. I will be seeing such people tomorrow to talk about how we can help offenders participate. Those people can bring real expertise to make sure that reoffending rates, which are much too high, come down.

Alan Beith: When are the Government going to produce a strategy on dealing with women offenders and reoffending by women?

Chris Grayling: Our aim is to do so early in the new year, but we do not want to rush it. I recognise that there is a need to differentiate the needs of women in prison from those of men in prison. The challenges are different and our responses should be different. One of my early steps in recognising that was to separate ministerial responsibility for men and women in prisons so that we could place a proper focus on the latter and their distinctive needs.

Legal Aid

Ian Mearns: What his policy is on legal aid.

Chris Grayling: Legal aid is a fundamental part of our legal system, but resources are not limitless. Publicly funded legal support should be reserved for those who need it most—for the most serious cases in which legal advice and representation are justified. It will continue to be available in cases where people’s lives or liberty are at stake, where they are at risk of serious physical harm or immediate loss of their home, or where their children may be taken into care.

Ian Mearns: The Secretary of State said that the legal aid system is a fundamental part of the justice system, but we are witnessing a massive erosion of legal aid. Given the attacks on legal aid, on no win, no fee claims, on the Human Rights Act and on judicial review, and the drainage of resources at community legal advice centres and citizens advice bureaux, which are so important, particularly at the moment, do this Government truly believe at all in access to justice for all?

Chris Grayling: Of course we believe in access for justice, but we have to face the reality that we have had by far the most expensive legal aid system in Europe. At a time when we are still dealing with the financial debris left behind by the previous Government, it is impossible to avoid some tough decisions.

Jonathan Djanogly: Reforms to legal aid to date have focused on civil legal aid. Future reforms will have to move on to criminal legal aid and, in particular, criminal contracting. Will my right hon. Friend therefore please say whether he has a timetable for criminal contracting?

Chris Grayling: Inevitably, we cannot avoid considering all the financial issues that face the Department. We are focusing on delivering the changes that we must soon introduce on civil legal aid; a number of measures need to come before this House in the next few weeks. That, for now, is our prime focus.

Andy Slaughter: To avoid a 12th defeat in the other place on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, the Secretary of State’s predecessor promised this House that he would not cut legal aid at first-stage appeal in welfare benefits cases if a point of law were involved. The proposals finally brought forward were so inadequate that two weeks ago their lordships voted them down and told him to come back with something better. Now we hear that the Secretary of State, in a fit of pique, intends to do nothing at all. Why is he breaking a promise to Parliament and to some of the most destitute and vulnerable people in the country?

Chris Grayling: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have promised to consider the decision by the Lords. I was a little surprised to see the rather unusual step taken in the other place of voting down a statutory instrument that was granting a concession, but we will of course review the issue and decide how to proceed.

Sentencing

Philip Davies: If he will take steps to ensure that prisoners serve full sentences as handed down by the courts.

Jeremy Wright: As my hon. Friend knows, prisoners are released in accordance with the legislation laid down by Parliament, and Parliament has consistently taken the view that most custodial sentences should be served part in custody and part under supervision in the community. Sentencers are fully aware of this when determining the appropriate length of sentence in each case. However, the good news for my hon. Friend is that on 3 December the Government implemented changes which will mean that some of the most dangerous offenders may serve their custodial terms in full.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for small mercies. However, according to the Ministry of Justice, somebody sentenced to prison for six months can be released within six weeks, somebody sentenced to prison for a year can be released within three months, and somebody sentenced to prison for two years can be released after just seven months. Does my hon. Friend think that that carries the confidence of the public at large, and if not, what does he intend to do about it?

Jeremy Wright: The principle of some of a sentence being served in the community is, as we have discussed before, in my view a good one, because it enables us to
	have a hold over the individual when they come back out into the community. However, my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that I am looking at ways in which early release in certain circumstances can be earned rather than automatically granted.

Sentencing Guidelines

Geraint Davies: What his policy is on sentencing guidelines for the most serious and violent offenders.

Emma Reynolds: What his policy is on sentencing guidelines for the most serious and violent offenders.

Jeremy Wright: Severe maximum penalties are available for the most serious and violent offenders. Sentencing guidelines are a matter for the independent Sentencing Council. Guidelines provide non-exhaustive lists of common aggravating and mitigating factors, and courts retain discretion to treat the particular circumstances of individual cases.

Geraint Davies: There is significant concern in Swansea about violent offenders being let off lightly, because the prisons are over-full with people who do not pose a significant risk to the community and because magistrates and judges are being pressurised to reduce costs. Will the Minister ensure that enough investment and priority is given to keeping violent offenders in jail for long enough that they are rehabilitated and do not go out and reoffend?

Jeremy Wright: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very keen to see that violent offenders serve appropriate sentences. The length of sentences is going up and not down. He is not right to suggest that prisons are over-full. There is still capacity within the prison system to take those who ought to be there. I remind him that the only Government in recent history who had to let offenders out of prison because they ran out of space were the previous Labour Government whom he supported.

Emma Reynolds: In July, a young constituent of mine tragically lost his life when he was fatally stabbed outside a nightclub in Wolverhampton. Although I understand that the Government have introduced minimum sentences for those who threaten people with knives, will the Minister consider introducing tougher and clearer sentences for those criminals who maim and kill people with knives?

Jeremy Wright: I understand exactly what the hon. Lady has said and my sympathies go to her constituent’s family. It is right that we look again at the range of sentencing options available for offences involving knives. This is an endemic problem and one that we need to tackle, particularly among young people who persist in the wrong belief that they are safer carrying a knife than being without one. We have to look at this again and we will.

Courtroom Security

Steve Rotheram: What recent assessment he has made of security arrangements in courtrooms.

Helen Grant: The security of our courtrooms and courts is a serious matter. Regular assessments take place at least once a year and they are monitored at cluster, regional and national level to aid in the continual review of security.

Steve Rotheram: A suspect who had been released on bail entered Liverpool Crown court with a knife he had smuggled through security checks and threatened to kill himself in the dock. Tragedy was averted on that occasion, but will the Minister outline what steps she is taking to instruct security staff to be extra vigilant during their searches of suspects on bail?

Helen Grant: We are aware of that serious incident and I assure the hon. Gentleman that a full review of security has taken place at Liverpool Crown court. An action plan for improvement has been put together and good progress is being made. Training in search procedures for all G4S staff was provided last summer and its effectiveness is being monitored. Security arrangements are now operating to a required standard, but remain under careful review.

Robert Flello: Security in courtrooms is one of the issues of great concern to victims and witnesses. With the announcement of the new part-time victims commissioner imminent—they will do just 10 hours a month—does the Minister think that the new part-time commissioner will have time to consider security in courtrooms as part of this Government’s approach to partly putting victims at part of the heart of the justice system?

Helen Grant: Victims will certainly be part of the heart of the justice system. An announcement will be made imminently to confirm the name of the new victims commissioner and I look forward to working with her very closely indeed. [Hon. Members: “Her?”] A lot of work is being done to improve security and safety in courts in addition to what I and the victims commissioner will do. Work has been done to improve security, including improvements to buildings, improved ways of working and improved education and training. The provision for the presence of a court security officer and enhanced risk management have also been helpful additions. We will continue to make sure that security is a priority.

Mr Speaker: I look forward to hearing further details in due course, if we have not already heard all of them.

Criminal Justice System (Women)

Rob Wilson: What steps his Department is taking to address vulnerabilities faced by women involved or at risk of becoming involved in the criminal justice system.

Helen Grant: The Government are committed to reducing offending and reoffending by women. We have a cross-government programme of work that seeks to address issues associated with offending, such as drugs, alcohol, mental health needs, domestic and sexual violence, accommodation and education.

Rob Wilson: I thank the Minister for her answer. Alana House in my constituency is a community centre supporting women experiencing problems whose behaviour has shown them to be at risk of offending. It has been particularly successful in providing the courts with a useful alternative to custodial sentences and helps vulnerable women to tackle their problems. The centre is in danger of closing. Will the Minister agree to visit Alana House to see the valuable work that the centre does, and to work with me to help ensure that this valuable community resource remains open?

Helen Grant: I know that my hon. Friend cares deeply about Alana House and its future in his Reading constituency. He has already discussed the matter with me on a number of occasions. The National Offender Management Service has funded women’s community facilities successfully for a number of years and Alana House has been provided with funding of £111,000 for 2012-13. From 2013-14, probation trusts will commission these very important services for women. They are required to provide gender-specific services and if those services are not sufficiently robust they will be challenged. It is too early to say what that will mean for Alana House, but I can tell my hon. Friend that I would be happy to visit the facility.

Seema Malhotra: The Corston report highlighted the need for women’s centres to work with women offenders and those at risk of offending. What is the Government’s current policy on continuing to provide support to such services?

Helen Grant: As I said, that funding will continue. The National Offender Management Service has funded women’s services very successfully for many years. The funding for women’s services will continue at the same level, but from 2013-14 probation trusts will commission these vital services.

David Hanson: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to ensure that women do not enter the criminal justice system is to use restorative justice more imaginatively for out-of-court disposals? Will she give a commitment to examine that in detail, particularly for women offenders?

Helen Grant: Yes, I am happy to give that commitment.

Prison Work

Jonathan Reynolds: What progress he is making on providing work for prisoners.

Jeremy Wright: Getting more prisoners working longer hours is a key priority for the Government. Enforced idleness does nothing to help prisoners lead law-abiding
	lives on release. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that we are making good progress. Last year, public sector prisons delivered more than 11.4 million hours of work in production and service areas—an increase of 800,000 hours on the previous year’s figures.

Jonathan Reynolds: PVC Recycling in my constituency runs a groundbreaking scheme in conjunction with the Prison Service and provides offenders with paid work for sorting through plastic composites. I am told that those skills are much in demand in the private sector when people finish their sentences. The work stops a huge amount of material going to landfill or being exported to the developing world. Will the Minister look at whether that scheme can be expanded, because I am told that there is considerable scope for expansion to prisons across the country?

Jeremy Wright: Yes, I will certainly look at that. We are keen to see the expansion of exactly that kind of work, for the reasons the hon. Gentleman gives. It is good for prisoners because they learn the hard skills of a trade and the softer skills of going to work in the morning and working a proper day, and we all benefit if offenders have the skills they need to ensure that they do not reoffend on release. I will look at what he has described. If we can find a way of expanding it, we will.

Stephen Metcalfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is entirely right to make prisoners work, and that the enforced idleness that there has been in prisons has to be reversed because that will lead to prisoners getting gainful employment on release?

Jeremy Wright: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is right, and it is what the public expect, that prisoners do something productive while they are in custody, rather than simply sitting around in their cells. That could involve a range of things such as work, education or drug treatment, but he is right that his constituents and mine would expect them to be doing something.

Probation Service

Mary Glindon: When he expects to announce the Government’s response to the consultation on the future of the probation service.

Chris Grayling: As I indicated a moment ago, following my meetings tomorrow with a series of stakeholders, I will finalise a paper setting out my proposals for delivering a rehabilitation revolution. The paper will include a response to the previous consultation on probation reform and set out how my proposals have developed. It will be published early in the new year.

Mary Glindon: The Secretary of State will be aware that Northumbria probation trust has received the best inspection results so far from Her Majesty’s inspectorate. How will he ensure that probation trusts continue to be effective in protecting the public and reducing reoffending after the review, given that it is proposed that offender management will be fragmented across a wide range of providers?

Chris Grayling: As I have indicated, we have some high-quality probation professionals in this country. It is a profession that will remain important to us. We need specialist skills, particularly in the protection of public security, risk assessment and harm prevention. Such skills will remain integral to the way in which a public sector probation service works.

Restorative Justice

Paul Goggins: What plans he has to extend the use of restorative justice.

Helen Grant: The Government published their restorative justice action plan for the criminal justice system on 19 November. It will improve the victim’s awareness of and access to restorative justice. We have also introduced legislation to put restorative justice on a statutory footing.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I welcome the Government’s action plan, to which she referred, including the clear commitment to the needs of victims. However, if she and her colleagues are to embed restorative justice at the heart of the criminal justice system, she will need to find additional resources. Will she make a commitment now to allocate to restorative justice some of the extra money that has been raised from offenders through the extended victims surcharge?

Helen Grant: We are already doing so.

Community Sentences

Stephen Gilbert: What steps he is taking to improve community sentences.

Chris Grayling: The Government are determined to ensure that community sentences are effective at punishing and rehabilitating offenders. We have increased the length and duration of curfews and given courts greater flexibility to impose programme and treatment requirements. We are also making the delivery of community payback swifter and more intensive. Provisions in the Crime and Courts Bill will ensure that new community orders contain a punitive element, give courts new powers to monitor the location of offenders electronically, and, following on from the comments of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), increase the use of pre-sentencing restorative justice.

Stephen Gilbert: I welcome the steps that my right hon. Friend has outlined. Newquay, in my constituency, sees a large and welcome influx of visitors each year, a minority of whom commit antisocial behaviour. What assurance can my right hon. Friend give me that community sentences will be served in the areas where the crimes occur?

Chris Grayling: That would of course be the norm, but the most important thing is not geography but that punishment takes place. Given the circumstances that
	Newquay faces, I hope that the addition of a punishment to a community sentence will be a timely reminder to a lot of young people of what they can and cannot do. That approach will create a system that is better and more appropriate for Newquay.

Ian Lucas: Wales probation trust has carried out excellent community-related work with local voluntary services in north Wales. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he sees a role for probation services in the brave new world to which he has referred?

Chris Grayling: I can absolutely do that. I have visited the Wales probation trust and am impressed by what it has done, and I am absolutely committed to seeing high-quality, specialist public sector probation officers continuing to deliver the support that we need them to deliver, particularly to prevent harm from coming to members of the public.

Topical Questions

Sharon Hodgson: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Chris Grayling: Today, in accordance with the timetable set out in its terms of reference, the Commission on a Bill of Rights has delivered its final report jointly to the Deputy Prime Minister and myself. The Government thank the commission for the diligent manner in which it has discharged its task. It reflected the remit set out in the coalition’s programme for government of establishing a commission to examine the creation of a British Bill of Rights that
	“incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties.”
	The House knows very well my strong views on these matters, and we will now give the report careful consideration.

Sharon Hodgson: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the medium to long-term demand on the youth justice system, given that the budget for early intervention work such as helping troubled families and supporting teenage drug and alcohol programmes will have been cut by 40% by the end of this Parliament?

Chris Grayling: I think the hon. Lady misunderstands the position. The Government are putting a huge effort into tackling the problems in troubled families, with work taking place in the Departments for Communities and Local Government and for Work and Pensions. I hope that we can make a real difference by reducing offending. The contribution of restorative justice will make a difference, and our rehabilitation revolution will help to ease pressures on our criminal justice system.

Lorely Burt: Last week, the Public Accounts Committee published its report on the Ministry of Justice’s language services contract. It concluded, among other things, that Applied Language Solutions does not have enough interpreters available to meet demand, and that the interpreters who are provided
	do not all have the necessary qualifications. Does the Secretary of State intend to implement the Committee’s recommendations to address those pressing issues?

Helen Grant: Interpreting services in court are at a 95% success rate, and the National Audit Office has said that we should go on and implement the proposals fully. The contract is saving us £15 million a year of taxpayers’ money, and as long as we continue to work with interpreters—we have already had an important meeting with them—the new system will be more sustainable, effective and transparent than the old one.

Sadiq Khan: The British Human Rights Act provides protection against cruel and inhumane treatment, including the right to a fair trial, the right to life, the right to family life and freedom of expression. It makes explicit the fact that Parliament is sovereign, and that even the Supreme Court cannot trump Parliament. Bearing that in mind, will the Justice Secretary make it clear that it is the British Human Rights Act that he so opposes, or is it the British courts that interpret the law? Which of the rights in the British Human Rights Act would not be included in his Bill of Rights?

Chris Grayling: The original human rights convention was a laudable document written when Stalin was in power and people were sent to the gulags without trial. Over 50 or 60 years of jurisprudence, the European Court of Human Rights has moved further and further away from the goals of its creators, and I believe that this is an issue that we have to address in this country and across Europe.

Sadiq Khan: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has done the primer, but I did not mention the European convention or the European Court—I mentioned the Human Rights Act. Will he answer a simple question? Will he confirm that were it not for the Human Rights Act, the extradition of the Asperger’s-suffering Gary McKinnon to the USA could not have been stopped by the Home Secretary?

Chris Grayling: I am a bit puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman’s comment, because the Human Rights Act enacts the convention in the law of this country. I think, and many in the House agree, that the remit of the Court has expanded beyond its creators’ original intention, which is why we need reform.

Simon Wright: Will the Secretary of State seek to make an example of some of the best practice work experience schemes for serving prisoners such as the big society award-winning custody and community project at Norwich’s Chapelfield shopping centre, which is highly effective in cutting reoffending?

Jeremy Wright: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we want more prisoners to have experiences, such as the one he mentions, in the right controlled conditions, and we want to make sure, as I said, that prisoners have experience of work as well as of work experience.

Ian Lucas: The prisons Minister recently met council leaders from north Wales to discuss the long-standing issue of a prison in the area. Will he meet north Wales Members of Parliament to keep them in the loop on his thinking, or does he intend not to keep them informed?

Jeremy Wright: As I recall, almost all the council leaders who came to see me on that occasion were Labour council leaders, so I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has a communication problem with his own councillors. This is going to be part of a much wider consideration of the prison estate that we will undertake. As soon as we are in a position to make decisions we will attempt to keep all those who need to be informed informed.

Jessica Lee: At this time of year, our thoughts often turn to those who are living on their own and are more vulnerable. Will my right hon. Friend set out what support is being offered to groups such as the Erewash community safety partnership in their fight against antisocial behaviour and to the efforts of all to bring the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour to the justice they deserve?

Damian Green: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Erewash community safety partnership, and to reassure her that this is one of the many areas where the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are working together closely. She will know that last week my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published a draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, which aims precisely to help community safety partnerships put victims at the heart of their response to this problem. The Ministry of Justice is funding a number of organisations, including Victim Support, that are working to the same end.

Paul Goggins: I know that the Minister responsible for probation has had the opportunity to visit Manchester and see for himself the intensive alternative to custody programme, which is co-ordinated by the Greater Manchester probation service and has achieved significant reductions in the rate and seriousness of offending. Will he and the Secretary of State make a clear commitment that, under the new commissioning arrangements, whenever they are announced, that tremendously important initiative will continue?

Jeremy Wright: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that, and I certainly enjoyed my visit to Manchester, where I could see that a great deal of good work was being done. He can take reassurance from the fact that the system we will roll out will reward those things that work. If the intensive alternative to custody programme is as effective as it appears to be, it will work and it will be rewarded.

Dominic Raab: The Bill of Rights commission report that has just been published has split views on many issues, but a majority think that the status quo is unstable and, interestingly, a majority want further reform of the Strasbourg Court. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give us that
	he remains committed to defending the House from the creeping usurpation of democratic power by the Strasbourg Court?

Chris Grayling: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute commitment. The Conservative party—although not the Opposition, from what we have heard today—is committed to the need for change and to ensuring that international human rights frameworks do not inappropriately intrude on the democratic decisions of this Parliament.

Jim Shannon: Does the Minister agree that an essential part of probation for reoffenders is monitored interaction within the community, and that community service can be a useful tool for reintegration in society?

Jeremy Wright: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must ensure that prisoners reintegrate. That work should start when prisoners are still in custody and continue through the gate into the community. We want to see more of that and will encourage it in any new system that we design.

Stephen Mosley: The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) mentioned the victims commissioner. Will she update the House on what progress has been made towards the appointment of a victims commissioner, and when that appointment is likely to take place?

Helen Grant: I look forward to announcing the name of the victims commissioner within the next few days.

Mr Speaker: We are now all agog.

Stephen McCabe: Very agog, Sir. Will the Secretary of State say when he plans to end the scandal of making welfare benefit payments to prisoners serving a sentence?

Chris Grayling: That is a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions but I am absolutely of the view that benefit payments should not be made to serving prisoners. I hope and expect that the DWP will deal with that issue. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has already taken steps to ensure that the system we inherited, in which that kind of thing could happen, comes to an end.

Simon Hart: Does the Secretary of State agree that although judicial review is important, in many circumstances its use can become excessive?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely agree. The proposed consultation and the measures that we set out last week, which we think will make a difference as a first stage towards reforming judicial review, are essential. We must bear in mind that only one in five judicial reviews succeed. They are a huge burden on our justice system and a price the nation has to pay. We will be looking at whether further changes can be made to ensure that we protect the integrity of judicial review as a valuable tool for challenging the Government, while not allowing it to continue as a tool that can be abused.

Bill Esterson: The most vulnerable people in my constituency will suffer most from cuts to legal aid. Is it not the case that under this Government there is one law for the few who can afford expensive legal advice and another law for the rest?

Chris Grayling: It is noticeable that time and again in these sessions we hear what are effectively spending commitments from the Opposition. They want to spend more money on legal aid, despite the fact that—by their own admission—they left us with no money in the bank. The hon. Gentleman must accept that we have to take tough decisions to reduce the cost of the most expensive legal aid system in Europe, and we will take those decisions.

Anne McIntosh: Many of us who were young advocates took work from legal aid at the start of our careers. If that work goes, will my right hon. Friend look at promoting mediation across all departments—welfare departments, health tribunals and the works—to help young aspiring advocates and barristers make up the income they will undoubtedly lose?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend’s point about mediation is important and highlights the fact that when dealing with the financial challenges we face, the Government must look for innovative new ways of doing things. Mediation is certainly one of those.

Yvonne Fovargue: How many people do the Government expect to be able to challenge welfare benefit decisions at the highest level on a point of law in the future if they continue to claim that it is too difficult to find a way to identify cases and provide legal aid, despite the Minister’s reassurances to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill Committee?

Chris Grayling: We are still in discussions about how to respond to the vote in the House of Lords, but we must accept that there are limits to what the Government and the taxpayer can provide in terms of legal support. There will always be limits to what the state can do, and we are trying to find the right balance in exceptionally difficult financial circumstances.

Priti Patel: This week the public learned that the legal aid bill for the radical cleric Abu Qatada stands at over half a million pounds and is still rising. Will my right hon. Friend put an end to that misuse of public money?

Chris Grayling: I would make two points to my hon. Friend. First, whether we like it or not, we will always, in the interests of justice, have to provide some support to people whom we find distasteful. Secondly, the reality is that I share her concerns. I have already commissioned a review of aspects of our legal aid system in which I believe there are public confidence issues. I hope to give my thoughts on that front in due course.

Bob Ainsworth: The Courts and Tribunals Service has admitted that there is a 55-week wait for appeals on employment and support allowance in Coventry. That is higher than the 37 weeks
	admitted by Ministers and higher than the national average. What will be done to end that disgraceful state of affairs?

Chris Grayling: We are doing two things, but the right hon. Gentleman needs to bear in mind that the backlog has existed not just under this Government, but under his Government. The reality is that we are dealing with a very large number of cases. We are working hard to improve decision making within Jobcentre Plus, and have taken on board the recommendations of Malcolm Harrington to improve the process. One challenge we face is that when we are taking tough decisions on benefit entitlement and when people are free to appeal, there will always be a propensity to do so.

Andrew Jones: Will the Secretary of State ensure that charities and voluntary organisations can continue to provide their services for the rehabilitation of offenders?

Jeremy Wright: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We want to encourage the good work that is already being done by a large number of voluntary and community sector organisations to provide the expertise that all hon. Members want incorporated into the rehabilitation revolution. Yes, we want to see more of that.

George Howarth: The Secretary of State seemed to confirm a moment ago in a reply to the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) that the legal aid bill for Abu Qatada came to half a million pounds, as has been reported in the newspapers. Will he therefore explain why he refused to provide that figure in a written answer to me last week?

Chris Grayling: I will have to look into that. I am not aware that I have refused to provide anything. The figure has been made publicly available.

Mr Speaker: Well, the plot thickens.

Robert Buckland: Last year, the number of applications for permission to apply for judicial review in immigration and asylum cases reached a point at which they represent more than three quarters of the total number of such applications. What will my right hon. Friend do about that growing issue?

Chris Grayling: Our consultation includes proposals to introduce a series of limitations in the judicial review process, particularly to stop people coming back again and again looking for new legal nuances to launch a new case. I believe, as does the judiciary—this has been highlighted in a number of recent cases—that judicial review is simply being used as a vehicle to delay being deported from the country, which is wrong.

Meg Munn: The all-party parliamentary group on child protection is conducting
	an inquiry into the review of family justice and the Government’s proposed reforms. We have today heard that in most situations the judge did not meet children in the looked-after system before making decisions about their lives. Is it not time that judges who work on family justice cases are dedicated to family justice rather than dealing with other cases, so that we can ensure that they are properly trained and can communicate properly with children?

Chris Grayling: It is not for me specifically to instruct the judiciary on how they handle cases—the independence of the judiciary is a feature of our system. However, I am sure the hon. Lady’s comments will have been heard by those who lead the family division. It is very much a matter for judges to decide how best to ensure that they have the right mix of experience.

Tim Loughton: Topically, Liz Calderbank, the chief inspector of probation, has today produced a report into what she calls the depressing and flawed care system, in which too many young people in care end up in the youth justice system. What part are Justice Ministers playing in the Department for Education review of vulnerable children placed a long way from home, often in inappropriate children’s homes and other accommodation?

Chris Grayling: We are doing two things. First, we are undertaking a complete review of how we detain young people. I am uneasy—to say the least—about a system that costs a substantial amount of money and yet has a high reoffending rate. I do not believe we are getting it right, and we are looking to introduce a process in the new year to address how we detain young people. Secondly, I am in regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. I believe we are due to meet to discuss those issues in the next few days.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Steve Rotheram.

Steve Rotheram: After a lengthy campaign, tomorrow the High Court will hear the application from the Attorney-General to quash the original verdicts into the deaths of 96 Liverpool fans at Hillsborough in 1989—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. My strong sense—I do not have advance briefing on the detail of the matter—is that the issue that he is raising could well be sub judice.

Steve Rotheram: indicated dissent.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is not a matter to be raised now, so we will leave it there. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman.

Steve Rotheram: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. That is the end of it. We must now move on.

Points of Order

Rob Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions on 24 October 2012, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams)—I have given her prior notice of this point of order—made the serious accusation on the Floor of the House that a relationship existed between:
	“Virgin Care donations to the Tory party, the number of Virgin Care shareholders on clinical commissioning group boards and the number of NHS contracts that have been awarded to Virgin Care”.—[Official Report, 24 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 919.]
	That assertion appears to have been picked up from a blogger who has since apologised and withdrawn it. The hon. Lady’s remarks carry a very serious and clear insinuation of a potentially corrupt relationship between Virgin Care, the Conservative party and the award of NHS contracts. However, when I checked the Electoral Commission’s online register of political donations, I found no record of any donation by Virgin Care to any political party. Is it not the tradition for a Member who has perhaps inadvertently made false claims or assertions on the Floor of the House to come to the House at the earliest opportunity to set the record straight?

Mr Speaker: What I say to the hon. Gentleman is twofold. First, I hope and am confident that the hon. Member has given proper notice to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) of his intention to raise this point on the Floor of the House.

Rob Wilson: indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Secondly, with specific reference to the hon. Gentleman’s question, right hon. and hon. Members must take responsibility for the accuracy of what they say in the House—the Chair cannot take over that responsibility. His point will have been heard by the hon. Member and by others, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting it on the record.

Steve Rotheram: rose—

Mr Speaker: We are not going to have a debate about the matter that the hon. Gentleman could not raise. However, if he wants briefly to raise a point of order, he can.

Steve Rotheram: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand your concerns about raising matters in this House that are sub judice, and I would never put you, as the Speaker of the House, in that position. My question was going to be that whatever the outcome, every eventuality should be afforded to the families and that the Secretary of State should be considering a possible outcome in which the families would need support from the public purse for any inquest that might follow on from any decision in the High Court tomorrow. That is all I was asking.

Mr Speaker: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is asking and what he describes as all he was asking, but I am afraid that the operation of the sub judice rule is not undertaken or applied on a selective basis entertaining various hypothetical scenarios. If a matter is sub judice, and I am so advised, it is sub judice. It is not open, in such circumstances, for a Member to pick upon an aspect of the matter that he thinks it timely to raise. The ruling I gave was on the basis of advice at the time, and I believe it to be correct. If I were incorrect, I would be very happy to say so to the hon. Gentleman. He is indefatigable in the pursuit of this issue and properly so, but he will accept that we must operate on the basis of the rules. He has said his piece, I respect that, and that is the end of it.

Chris Grayling: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It might be helpful to say that my Department is mindful of the financial pressures faced by the Hillsborough families. We all recognise the very difficult circumstances they have been through, and they are certainly in our consideration.

Dennis Skinner: Is that sub judice?

Mr Speaker: That is not sub judice; it is a relatively unusual way for the Secretary of State to voice the Government’s thinking on this matter. I thank him in the spirit in which his comment was made. There is no doubt that if the Government have got further and better particulars on the matter, at some point that will become clear. We will leave it there and I thank him.

Lorely Burt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have never raised a point of order before, but I feel that I must today. I tabled a question for today’s questions regarding the family justice review. The question was approved by the Table Office and successfully drawn as No. 5 in the ballot, but it was withdrawn by the Ministry of Justice, because it deemed it to be irrelevant to its Department, despite the fact that it had been corresponding with me on this matter since last June. My constituent, Mr Neil Brotherton, who is trying to improve children’s access to their family when their parents separate, was to have been here today to hear the Minister’s answer. Will you advise me, Mr Speaker, on what course of action I may now pursue, not just for Mr Brotherton, but for other constituents?

Mr Speaker: I am happy to oblige the hon. Lady. I am sorry that it was her first point of order, but I am quite certain it will not be her last. My response to her point of order is twofold. First, my understanding—I do not wish to be pedantic, but I think it is factually correct and an important point—is that the question was not, as she put it, withdrawn, but transferred. Secondly, on how she should proceed, I would say that she is an ingenious Member and will know that there is plenty of scope for tabling questions, seeking Adjournment debates and raising matters during oral questions, and there are also the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, so there are plenty of facilities open to her.
	Although the Table Office seeks to advise hon. Members where there is a risk of an oral parliamentary question being transferred, the prediction of the allocation of
	ministerial responsibility is not an exact science. It is for the Government to decide where responsibility lies for answering a question, and I do not intervene in such decisions. I recognise that they can be the source of frustration or irritation, but they are not matters for the Chair. Furthermore, for the hon. Lady’s benefit and that of the House, I must make the specific point that nothing disorderly has occurred.

Joan Walley: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I am not sure there is a further to that point of order, but the hon. Lady has been in the House 25 years, so we ought to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Joan Walley: I, too, had an oral question down for answer during Justice Question Time, but was told at the last minute that it had been transferred to the Cabinet Office, because the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is now dealing with it, was unable to answer it as part of the Justice Front-Bench team. Will you have regard to the difficulty of raising issues on behalf of our constituents owing to internal transfers within the Government?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, but my earlier statement still applies: it is a matter for the Government. I say that not least because we are in the presence of the esteemed Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—[Interruption.] No, there is no need for him to rise from his seat at this point, though it is always a pleasure to listen to him. Nevertheless, I attach great importance to early decisions on transfer. If a question is to be transferred, it is for the convenience of the Member and the House as a whole that the decision be taken and the Member notified at an early stage. After his 42 years in the House, I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be the first to assent to that uncontroversial proposition.

Welfare Cash Card

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Alec Shelbrooke: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the introduction of a welfare cash card; and for connected purposes.
	The principle of the Bill is to encourage responsible spending by welfare claimants, ensuring that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely and for the purpose it is intended. It will alter the spending habits of a minority who for far too long have taken advantage of the system, getting something for nothing. Consequently, I believe that it will change the perception of benefits in this country for the better. Politicians, the media and those from varied walks of life have been complicit in tarring as idle all 5.88 million recipients of one or more benefits from the Department for Work and Pensions. In fact, however, the time someone finds themselves on benefits is the time strivers and low-paid workers most need a supportive society where they are given the respect most deserve in trying to make work pay.
	It is 70 years this month since the Beveridge report identified the five giant evils that plagued society: disease, want, ignorance, squalor, and idleness. Members on all sides of the House will want to praise successive Governments for their advances in eradicating these evils, but one remains prevalent today. The “something for nothing” culture encouraged by the previous Labour Government created a two-tier benefits system in which the strivers and low paid-workers were penalised for the idleness of the shirkers.
	The Bill seeks to work alongside the Government’s welfare reforms to support those hard-working families who strive to be self-supporting by ending the “something for nothing” stigma of the welfare system. The introduction of a welfare cash card on which benefits would be paid would enable claimants to make only priority purchases such as food, clothing, energy, travel and housing. The purchase of luxury goods such as cigarettes, alcohol, Sky television and gambling would be prohibited. When hard-working families up and down the country are forced to cut back on such non-essential, desirable and often damaging items—NEDD items, as I call them—it is right that taxpayer-funded benefits should be used to fund only essential purchases.
	No doubt, Opposition Members will say that people would be too ashamed to carry a welfare cash card, but I want to discount that argument immediately. If people did not want to be recognised as being unemployed, jobcentres would cease to exist as people would not visit them for fear of being seen in them.
	Owing to the differing circumstances involved, this measure would not affect the basic state pension or disability benefits. For all other claimants, however, this move towards responsible spending would support the introduction of universal credit and the change from fortnightly to monthly welfare payments. It would place a focus on the financial planning that will be crucial in ensuring that out-of-work families take charge of their monthly spending. The welfare cash card would encourage that by prohibiting the purchase of NEDD items, thereby increasing the funds available for purchasing food and
	other essential commodities. It would mould financial responsibility for all claimants and provide an opportunity for out-of-work families to take charge of their finances just as they would need to when they got back into employment.
	A stigma around those on benefits is commonplace, but that is neither accurate nor fair to low-paid workers who rely on the extra support that the welfare system offers. We need to stop the damaging perception that all benefit recipients are financially reckless. If taxpayers can be safe in the knowledge that claimants can no longer purchase NEDD items at the taxpayer’s expense, the concept of welfare will be viewed once again as a responsible way for people to get back on their feet. That is what the welfare state was intended to be: a safety net in times of need; a hand up, not a hand-out.
	Beveridge had such a high opinion of society that he thought nobody would want to choose not to work. The last decade has proved otherwise, however, with the previous Government allowing an epidemic to fester. It is now time to modify the system so that this socially destructive state-funded way of living is no longer an option. Surely we should aim to introduce measures to enable society to be supportive and respectful of those struggling to succeed, which is what this form of financial monitoring could achieve.
	Furthermore, the welfare cash card has the potential for more social good, not least by assisting efforts to eradicate child poverty. Statistics show that over 1.26 million claimants have children. Prohibiting the purchases of NEDD items such as cigarettes and alcohol would leave more money for priority purchases for children, who should not be the ones to suffer as a result of their parents’ irresponsible spending. To put this in monetary terms, the Office for National Statistics has calculated that the average household spends £48 a month on cigarettes, alcohol and narcotics. If the Bill created even the slightest chance of raising those children out of poverty, or of reducing the chance of them going to school hungry or being subjected to secondary inhalation of smoke, I would argue that it was worth while.
	A ban on cigarette and alcohol purchases would also inevitably impact on NHS costs. This is not to suggest that welfare claimants are purposely taking advantage of the NHS, but a reduction in smoking-related and alcohol-related admissions would be a natural by-product of the welfare cash card. Smoking-related illnesses are estimated to cost the NHS at least £2.7 billion a year in England alone, with the same cost attached to alcohol-related harm. With that figure expected to rise to £3.7 billion by 2015, it is simply wrong that the state is inadvertently fuelling the problem by allowing the use of welfare payments for the purchase of NEDDs.
	The Bill is about safeguarding the use of taxpayers’ money and supporting claimants in managing their
	own incomes. In the 21st century, it is right that we should maximise the benefits of technology for increased efficiency and reduced bureaucracy. In doing so, we would join Australia and the USA in leading the way in which welfare payments are made to claimants. In Australia, a five-year pilot of the Basics card is under way, and in America, the 47 million recipients on the food stamp programme receive their credits on an electronic benefit transfer card.
	A welfare cash card would be a sensible step forward as we move towards universal credit. The cash card would operate like any other bank card utilising the chip and PIN payment method. There is also scope to use the cash card to increase the use of public transport, through an integrated travel pass, to assist travel needs.
	This is about benefit distribution and spending, not about benefit allocation. Whatever the amount that is received on welfare, it is paramount that we are sure that it is being used in the best way to benefit society. The Beveridge report modelled a welfare state using the insurance contributions an individual pays to support them when they fall on hard times. At a time when it is not uncommon for families to have third-generation benefit claimants, who have never made these insurance contributions, this model is becoming increasingly unviable and the need for reform is urgent.
	This Bill would promote financial planning and spending by those in society who have fallen on hard times and require support from the state. It backs those hard-working families who feel penalised for going to work, such as the single mum in my constituency—a low-paid shop worker on income support, juggling child care but going to work because she believes it is better to work than spend a life on benefits.
	We must change this vision of the benefits system. We must change this perception to support those in society who need the benefit system to help them get on and work hard in life. The welfare cash card does just that: it is not about dividing to rule, but ending Labour’s divisive two-tier benefit system and the damaging perception that accompanied it. It backs the low-paid workers and supports all jobseekers to spend responsibly, take control of their finances and get back on their feet. The welfare state can no longer be seen as getting something for nothing: it must deliver on Beveridge’s vision of a temporary security net by using benefits to create a striving society.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Alec Shelbrooke, Jessica Lee, Nigel Adams, Gareth Johnson and Kris Hopkins present the Bill.
	Alec Shelbrooke accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 112).

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

[Relevant document: The Fourth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Justice and Security Bill, HC  370 ]
	Second  Reading

Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Since we first consulted on the Bill and during its passage through the House of Lords, it has aroused quite a bit of passion and debate among those interested in the subject. The first aim of my speech will be to try to satisfy the House that most of the passion and debate turns on the very important detail of the way in which the Bill’s processes will work. No doubt, the detail will be considered at great length in Committee rather than today. I believe that I can demonstrate that there is no real division on principle between the Government and most of the people who have debated this matter. The Government are just as committed as any other Member of either House of Parliament to the principles of justice being done in civil cases, the rule of law and the accountability of our intelligence agencies both to the courts and to Parliament. I believe that accountability will be improved by the Bill.
	Our intelligence services comprise brave men and women, and we all realise they do essential work in helping to protect us against the great threats to this country. We also insist that they should respect and follow our values when carrying out their work, and they are properly accountable to the law and Parliament. I think the best people in the intelligence agencies are anxious to be able to demonstrate that, to protect their reputation and taxpayers’ money for claims made against them.

Menzies Campbell: Before my right hon. and learned Friend embarks on a more detailed consideration, I wonder whether he understands that the amendments made in the House of Lords have been regarded by many people as being entirely favourable and reasonable. Will he confirm whether Her Majesty’s Government will accept those amendments and will remain open to any further amendments, particularly those with the purpose of extending the discretion of the courts?

Kenneth Clarke: I shall come on to the detail a little later in my speech and I want to start, if I may, by reiterating the case in principle. I will deal with the amendments later, and we will accept some of them, but express our doubts about others. We will come back with a detailed response in Committee. I think the people who moved those amendments were pushing at an open door in terms of judicial discretion, but they were desperately anxious to dot every i and cross every t. In some cases, we are going to have to consider whether they put the right dots on the right i’s and crossed the right t’s. I shall deal with that. I quite understand that the Joint Committee on Human Rights came forward with recommendations that commanded wide support in the House of Lords—and, no doubt, in this House, too—but Ministers need to address them properly. If we wish to come back to some of them, we will explain in detail the reasons why.
	Let me get under way. It was about a year ago when the House—

Hywel Francis: rose —

Kenneth Clarke: I will give way to the Chairman of the Joint Committee, but I will not start a rash of giving way at this early stage of my speech.

Hywel Francis: Do I detect from the warm way in which the Minister responded and referred to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that he will be minded to accept many of its recommendations?

Kenneth Clarke: Minded to? Certainly—we will accept some of them. I speak warmly of the Joint Committee because I do not believe it was pursuing objectives that differed from mine or those of my colleagues. I think it will probably fall to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) to explain in Committee why we are not wholly convinced that every one of the amendments is quite right, or even that some of them would have the effect that the Joint Committee proposed. I will not, however, get into that level of detail so early in a Second Reading speech, if I may be allowed not to do so.
	We discussed the Green Paper about a year ago, and I recall that it was a comparatively non-controversial occasion. Such was the general satisfaction and understanding on all sides that I left the Chamber wondering whether I needed to have bothered to make an oral statement. Quite a lot has happened since then, but I trust it has not shifted the opinion of the Members who joined in the debate at that time, particularly that of the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). I still strongly agree with what he said, which I shall quote:
	“We need, as a matter of urgency, to bolster the safeguards and scrutiny mechanisms concerning issues of security and intelligence.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 901.]
	I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman nodding his head in response to his own quotation. I was glad to read in a recent interview in The Guardianthat he still believes that, as he said:
	“In two and a half years’ time, it could be me in that seat making that tough decision. So it is very important for ministers to have the opportunity to protect sources, to protect delicate operations and all the rest of it. They shouldn’t be jeopardised by a civil action.”
	I will not comment on the right hon. Gentleman’s political optimism and ambition to occupy any seat at all, but he is certainly right, in my opinion, to identify a serious problem with the current arrangements. At the moment, total secrecy is all that happens to the sensitive intelligence information in far too many cases and no judicial judgment is pronounced on the merits of plaintiff versus defendant. I believe that the present system needs to be reformed urgently. That is why the principle of the Bill is certainly necessary.
	In support of the need for change, let me remind the House of a letter written to The Times newspaper last month by a number of individuals for whom I personally have the greatest respect. The signatories included the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord Wolff; the former Home Secretary, Lord Reid; and my right hon. Friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, a former
	Lord Chancellor. I am sure we all agree that all those people are totally committed to the rule of law and the principles of justice. In their letter they explained:
	“In national security matters our legal system relies upon a procedure known as public interest immunity…Under PII, evidence which is deemed to be national security sensitive is excluded from the courtroom. The judge may not take it into account when coming to his or her judgment.”
	This procedure, they say, is
	“resulting in a damaging gap in the rule of law.”
	They are right to say that.
	In my opinion, it has become well nigh impossible for British judges to untangle, and adjudicate on, claims and counter-claims of alleged British involvement in the mistreatment of detainees. If we, as citizens, want to know whether the Security Service could challenge and rebut what is claimed against it, no judge can give us guidance as things stand. Some of the allegations of British involvement in the mistreatment of detainees are really serious, and I do not think that the system should continue to prevent judges from scrutinising the secret actions of the state in such cases.

Hazel Blears: Not only will judges not have the full information, but when cases are settled, adverse inferences will inevitably be drawn about behaviour that may or may not have taken place, and that affects the reputation of our agencies. Is it not therefore essential that we can get to the heart of the matter, so that the agencies can at least put their case?

Kenneth Clarke: I entirely agree. We keep being reminded of that. The fact is that the reputational damage is probably more significant than the millions of pounds that have been involved in some of these cases, and we need to ensure that some way can be found of trying them.

David Davis: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way? On that point?

Kenneth Clarke: Let me just explain. All of this is relevant.
	Some of our critics appear to be arguing decisively that the status quo is somehow defensible and should continue, but I believe that that position is untenable now. It is simply not possible for a judge to hear these matters, and, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), all kinds of insinuations are made about cases in which it ought to be obvious to everyone that the intelligence agencies were in no position to call any evidence that would seriously address the issues.
	The serious evidence that might be called and might be relevant—I am not commenting on the merits of any individual cases—might relate to the precise nature of the British intelligence agencies’ involvement in the issues concerned. What did our agents know about either an individual or an organisation at the time when the events being described were taking place? What collaboration was taking place between the British Government and partners in overseas agencies, and what information was being shared? Those are all very
	sensible questions, given the nature of some of the claims that have been made about the behaviour of British agents.
	As I have told the House before, I do not think that any country in the world would tolerate a legal system in which our spies and our agents and their collaborators cheerily appeared in open court, in front of the parties, their lawyers and the press, and gave evidence on these matters. It would be exceedingly damaging. Public interest immunity, on which people now rely, has one obvious defect. If a Minister obtains it, that means that the material is entirely excluded from the court, and neither party can rely on it.
	What continually happens, certainly in relation to defence evidence, is that—although there has been no proper hearing of all the evidence—the parties settle, the taxpayer pays up, claims are made which are damaging to the reputation of the service and no one knows whether or not they are justified, and we have to move on from there. I want us to reach a point at which cases are not being settled simply because our court procedures are not capable of allowing sensitive national security material to be heard in the few cases in which it is plainly relevant. It has always been obvious to me that what is needed in civil actions of this kind is the very limited use, in exceptional cases, of the closed procedures that were created by the last Government, which would enable a High Court judge to consider all the evidence from both sides, but to do so in necessarily closed conditions if national security was at risk.

Andrew Tyrie: What inference does my right hon. and learned Friend think the public will draw if the Government win a case involving the closed material procedure in which the other party has had no chance to see or challenge the evidence—secret evidence—that the Government have introduced in support of that case?

Kenneth Clarke: The inference I would draw is that at least a judge, doing the best that he or she can, has had a chance to consider the evidence, and has delivered a judgment. If the judge is not allowed to consider the evidence, obviously no useful judgment can be pronounced at the end of the case. Of course it would be very much better if the evidence were given in an open procedure—in normal cases, the openness of justice is one of the proudest boasts of our system—but in cases in which national security will be jeopardised if evidence is given openly, it must be ensured that the evidence can be given in the best possible circumstances in the light of the obvious limitations of the case.
	British judges are quite capable of deciding whether or not national security is involved. British judges do not need us to lecture them on the rule of law and the duty to be impartial between the parties. British judges will want to hear evidence openly if they think that that can possibly be practicable. British judges will be able to judge—they do it all the time—the weight to be given to evidence. Once the judges discover who was the source of the information, people can be challenged about the reliability of that source. Of course the system is not ideal—if we could only persuade all the country’s enemies to close their ears, there could be a perfectly ordinary single-action trial and we could hear everything—but I
	believe that the Bill will move us from what is currently a hopeless position to a better position that will allow us to hear the judgment of a judge in appropriate cases.

Elfyn Llwyd: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of a criminal trial that took place some years ago in Caernarfon Crown court in north Wales, involving the damage to second homes, in which MI5 officers gave evidence behind a screen? Their anonymity was not compromised, and nor were the interests of the state.

Kenneth Clarke: Nothing in the Bill will affect the criminal law. No one will be prosecuted on the basis of secret evidence. However, there are plenty of cases—for instance, those involving MI5 or involving victims of certain types, such as vulnerable victims—in which it is proper to screen witnesses from public view, or otherwise protect them. The Bill, however, has nothing whatever to do with criminal cases.
	The purpose of closed procedures is not just to ensure that no one can see what the agent looks like; there are some cases in which we cannot let people know what the agent was doing. The plaintiff may have been compromised as a result of terrorist or other activity, and he and his friends may be dying to know how they were caught. What were the British agents doing that put them on to it? They want to know who shopped them, and that will make things very difficult for a person who they come to suspect is the source of the material that is emerging. As I think everyone knows perfectly well, it is not possible to share that information with the parties in each and every case of this kind. However, while some people may consider it satisfactory to say “Well, in those cases the Government never defend themselves and we just pay millions of pounds”, I really do not think that we need tolerate that situation any longer.

Hywel Francis: Given what he said earlier about closed material procedures, how would the right hon. and learned Gentleman respond to what Lord Kerr said recently in the Supreme Court? He said:
	“The central fallacy of the argument”—
	the Government’s argument, that is—
	“lies in the unspoken assumption that, because the judge sees everything, he is bound to be in a better position to reach a fair result. That assumption is misplaced. To be truly valuable, evidence must be capable of withstanding challenge.”

Kenneth Clarke: I was intending to return to the details of closed material procedures later. We could easily trade quotations, because various judges and legal authorities have expressed different views.
	Closed material procedures sometimes achieve success. We have them now—the previous Government introduced them—and as I shall say later, as I should save it until I get to the relevant part of my speech, there are cases in which the special advocates have overturned the Government’s case. The most well known case is that of Abu Qatada, who won in a closed material procedure before a British judge only about a month ago—

Sadiq Khan: It is being appealed.

Kenneth Clarke: Of course it is being appealed, but that does not alter my point. Depending on which side one is on, it is no good saying that we cannot have closed material procedures if the wrong side is going to win. In that case, the Government lost and Abu Qatada won using a special advocate and a closed material procedure.

David Davis: On exactly that point, my right hon. and learned Friend—and he is my friend—said that these proceedings were created under the Labour Government. They were, and there are now 69 special advocates, 32 of whom are experienced in closed material procedures. The vast majority of them—nearly all of them—oppose the Bill as they think PII works better than the procedure they have been operating for the past few years. Why does he think that is?

Kenneth Clarke: The special advocates surprised me with the ferocity of the evidence they provided. They start from the side of the argument that challenges the security services and is suspicious of what goes on, and judges have told me—some have said this publicly—that they underrate their effectiveness in such actions. They are used to practising the present law and I assume that their position is that the present law is perfectly all right and that they wish to continue with it. I am surprised by the adherence to PII, which has not hitherto been evident.
	Let me give the example of another case to show that special advocates can successfully challenge the evidence put forward in closed proceedings by claimants. Ekaterina Zatuliveter, the Russian girlfriend of a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, won her deportation case after a closed hearing in which a special advocate challenged the argument that she was a threat to national security and should be deported. It is simply not the case that in closed procedures it is impossible to challenge these points. Such cases are comparatively new, as no one dreamed we would have such litigation until 10 or 15 years ago.
	The claims are getting steadily more numerous as we have an attractive jurisdiction in which the person against whom one makes allegations will probably not be able to call any evidence and one will be paid millions of pounds. The best way forward is the one that has been successfully used in the two cases I have already cited, which is, despite our very limited experience, having closed proceedings and special advocates. It is less than ideal, but it is justice, not secrecy. Secrecy is what we have at the moment, with an uncertain and debatable outcome in all these cases.

Jack Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct to say, of course, that the previous Labour Administration introduced closed material proceedings in 1997, with support from all parties, as I recall. They have worked. Will he confirm that in at least seven of more than 30 Special Immigration Appeals Commission cases since the beginning of 2007, including the two he mentioned, the court has found against the Government and in favour of the potential deportee?

Kenneth Clarke: I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s statistics. I cannot confirm them, as I do not have them myself, but they sound wholly credible. As he said, a Labour Government introduced these procedures—it might have been him—

Jack Straw: It was me.

Kenneth Clarke: It was he, as Home Secretary, who introduced them. They arose partly at the behest of human rights lobbyists who are now vehemently opposing the Bill. It was the intervention of human rights activists in the case of Chahal in the late 1990s that saw the system of closed hearings develop, but some of the same people are now arguing that closed material proceedings put the Government above the rule of law.
	As I have already said and as the right hon. Gentleman has with authority confirmed, people have been successful in fighting the Government in these civil actions under the closed material proceedings, as the number of claims goes—

Alan Beith: rose —

Edward Leigh: rose —

Kenneth Clarke: Let me move on, because I am probably moving on to the point of concern—

Alan Beith: On this point.

Kenneth Clarke: All right.

Alan Beith: My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the ability of the special advocate to challenge the evidence. Lord Kerr, in the remarks quoted earlier, talked about gisting and whether it was possible for the special advocate to confirm or correct with the other party whether he was in a particular place at a particular time, because that had come up in the evidence. We need to consider a little more carefully that ability to check back with the person who would normally be instructing the advocate but cannot because he is a special advocate.

Kenneth Clarke: I shall turn to some of this detail, but gisting is allowed under the Bill. The judge will have all the powers he requires to recommend gisting once he has heard the secret evidence.

Edward Leigh: My right hon. Friend is very generous in giving way and I understand the dilemma he faces, but is it not a fundamental principle of British jurisprudence, defended by this House for 500 years, that a defendant should have sight of the evidence used against him that might affect his liberty?

Kenneth Clarke: In a criminal case, that is so. That is why we cannot prosecute some people we really should, because there is no way to reveal the evidence against them—if it cannot be revealed to a judge and a jury, he is untouchable under the criminal law. We are talking about civil actions, sometimes involving people with tenuous connections with this country who have come to this country and sought damages from a British court for what they say is the misbehaviour of the intelligence agencies of the Government. I have tried to explain why it is impossible to follow the normal and desirable rules of civil justice and hear it all in the open. We must find some way in which these cases can be resolved by a judge in a way that is consistent with our principles of justice without at the same time jeopardising national security. That is the straightforward dilemma.

Bob Neill: rose —

Kenneth Clarke: I shall give way one last time, and then I must press on to the JCHR’s amendments.

Bob Neill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although the proposed system is not perfect and never can be in litigation, it is surely preferable to have that than a system where an ex parte application for PII can be made without the defendant having any notice of any kind and without anybody, not even a special advocate, being able to test the material?

Kenneth Clarke: The time has come for reform. The present system is not defensible, in my opinion, and my hon. Friend confirms that all kinds of features of PII are hopelessly unsatisfactory. We have to deal with them.
	Let me move on—

Andrew Tyrie: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way one last time?

Kenneth Clarke: I keep giving way one last time, so, with apologies to my hon. Friend, let me turn to what I think is the subject matter of the serious debate that has been taking place since we consulted on the Green Paper.
	It was our intention from the start to consult on the Green Paper. As what we are doing goes to the fundamentals of our legal system and our rule of law, we actively sought the widest possible support for what we are doing. Even before the Bill was introduced and before it went through the Lords, we narrowed its scope to make quite sure that CMPs could be made available only when disclosure of the material would be damaging to the interests of national security. Green Paper language that slightly implied that the police, Customs and Excise and all sorts of other people might start invoking them has gone completely away. We removed the Secretary of State’s power to extend the scope of the Bill by order, and excluded inquests after a campaign led by the Daily Mail got widespread support in this House. As I have already said, we never even contemplated that our proposals should cover criminal cases.
	We also conceded—this is the key point, which I think we are still debating with most of the critics—very early on, after publishing the Green Paper, that the decision whether to allow a closed material procedure or not should be a matter for the judge and never for the Minister. That is an important principle and it is what most of the arguments, even about the JCHR’s amendments, are all about. We have all, I hope, now agreed that it is a judge’s decision whether or not to hold closed procedures. The question is how far we need to keep amending the Bill to clarify this and how we avoid unnecessary consequences if we overdo it. I shall return to that.
	That is what most the debate was about in the House of Lords and it is the point of the JCHR’s report. When it came to a Division in the House of Lords on the principle of closed material procedures, the Government had an enormous majority. The Labour party did not oppose the principles of CMP, even though it was a Back-Bench Labour amendment which the other place voted down. I trust that the Front-Bench Labour team and the right hon. Member for Tooting continue to be
	of that opinion. Unless his undoubted radical left-wing instincts have got the better of him, I do not think that is the position of any party in this House.
	The concern of the House of Lords and of the JCHR was that the judge should have a real and substantive discretion about whether a CMP is necessary in any case. Many Members of the upper House made their support for CMPs contingent on changes being made to increase judicial discretion and ensure that it was clear on the face of the Bill that CMPs would be used only for a very small category of exceptional cases.
	I begin by making it clear on behalf of the Government that I agree that the judge should have discretion. I agree that we should be talking about a small number of cases where any other process is impossible and it is necessary for it to be handled in this way. A strong and compelling case was made by those who argued that we ought to trust our judges to decide what the right way is to try the issues in any particular case. I agree. The debate—I suspect it will be the same debate today as it was in the House of Lords—starts from the fact that the Government’s case is that the Bill as it stood already accepted that principle. But as we were defeated, we will consider what more we can do by way of reassurance. People are deeply suspicious of anything in this area and they are convinced that, despite what we put in the Bill, the judge will somehow be inhibited by what the Government propose to do.
	Our judges are among the finest in the world. They are staunch defenders of the rule of law, and they have shown time and again that they can be trusted not to endanger the national security of this country. I know that they can be—

William Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Kenneth Clarke: If it is on a British process, not a Strasbourg one.

William Cash: It is on the Law Lords themselves in the past and now the Supreme Court. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there are divisions of opinion even at the highest level about the extent to which such decisions should ultimately be made by the most senior judges or Parliament, and that there are very senior judges who take the view that Parliament, not the judges, should decide these questions?

Kenneth Clarke: There are other occasions on which we shall no doubt debate parliamentary override of the courts of law. I realise that that is a matter dear to my hon. Friend’s heart. In the Duma it would be carried nem. con. The Russian Government would be utterly delighted to hear the principle of parliamentary override brought into our legal system in this country. I think the House of Commons should be hesitant. There may be senior judges who think that that should apply. The process that we are applying is different. The Government’s case is based on trusting the judges to use the discretion sensibly. That is what I think we should do, but of course I address seriously the views that were put forward.
	I want to make it clear—it goes back to what the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) asked me earlier—that the Government will not seek to overturn the most important amendment—the
	most important, in my opinion—made by the House of Lords that the court “may” rather than “must” order a closed material procedure upon an application. I do not see how we could give a wider discretion than that.
	We will also accept that any party, not just the Government, should be able to ask for a closed material procedure. I think it highly unlikely that any plaintiff will be in any situation to start arguing that he wants to protect national security, but if people want that, they can have it. More importantly, the court of its own volition should be able to order a closed material procedure.
	A further series of amendments were made which we still need to look at more closely. We have time to look at them closely and the others will be addressed by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup in Committee. We are not against the principle, but we are not sure that the amendments add anything. I shall give the reasons in a moment.

Joan Walley: I am grateful for the opportunity to question the Minister. My main concern is where the discretion is being applied. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify for me the position of families of armed forces personnel who have been illegally killed, or people who have been injured and wish to take out court cases? How will the new arrangements apply to them, and how will it be possible to ensure transparency in the courts?

Kenneth Clarke: I answered that in the written question that the hon. Lady put to me. She is welcome to put an oral question to me at Cabinet Office questions, now that she has discovered who is handling the Bill. Most such Ministry of Defence cases do not give rise to national security considerations, and the Ministry of Defence does not expect to start invoking closed material proceedings. One cannot anticipate it, but it is possible that the circumstances of the tragic death of a soldier might involve some highly secret operation, and then the situation might arise. We have not had problems on this front so far and the expectation is that it need not arise. If it were to arise, there would still be the judgment of the judge and a decision in the case.
	I am trying to think of examples that could conceivably arise. If a soldier was killed and it was alleged that that was the result of some actionable negligence, which apparently we are now going to allow people to argue in our courts, and that took place in some highly secret operation in some unlikely part of the world, I cannot rule out a CMP application being made. The Ministry of Defence is more robust than I am. I am told that it does not think that most of these cases involve national security at all.

Jeremy Corbyn: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), the Minister outlined extreme circumstances of an injury to a British soldier. Would the same process apply if there was embarrassment over arms sales to a particular country, where those sold arms had been used to deny the human rights of many others, against the policies and wishes of this country, and there was a desire not to make that too public?

Kenneth Clarke: It sounds as though it could be criminal action in that case, which the provision would not apply to. It would be for the judge to decide whether what is being protected is embarrassment for the Government or national security and the interests of the nation. We can all start dreaming up—I did it myself a moment ago—fanciful cases where such a situation might arise. The judge would have to decide whether national security was at risk. It is a two-stage process, which I will not argue at length today, but what happens is that the judge can allow the closed material proceeding. At the end of the closed material proceeding he can revoke it, he can say that the proceedings should be gisted, he can say that the documents should all go in, but perhaps redacted in key places. There is wide discretion before he goes back to the open session. If a Government at some time want a closed hearing, they will get it only if they can satisfy the judge that national security is at risk.

Pete Wishart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have seen the strongly worded letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Scottish Government outlining his serious concerns about the Bill. The Scottish Government have made it clear that they want nothing to do with it as it applies to their jurisdiction. Will the Minister ensure that he respects their position?

Kenneth Clarke: Constitutionally, I will respect the Scottish Government’s position. If they think that Scots are not ready for decisions in these cases and wish everything to remain shrouded in secrecy and mystery, so be it. That is a matter for the Scottish Government. It seems to me that would be the result if they will not move with what I think is the obvious response to the needs of recent cases.
	To return to the detailed amendments, let me explain where my reservations come from. The House of Lords decided to get carried away with the discretion. I have already accepted the widest discretion, but they then wanted to start setting out in the legislation factors that the judge ought to take into account. We are considering that, and I can assure Members that there will be a response in Committee. The Lords obviously do not trust judges as much as I do, because they wish to start setting out factors. However, if we set out factors in the legislation, they must be the right ones. If they are not, they can give rise to other problems.
	For example, some of the amendments made in the House of Lords—I am leaving aside whether some of them are necessary—would require the judge to consider and exhaust alternatives to closed material proceedings in every case in order to prove that the case could not be tried in any other way. It sounds attractive, but in some cases it would be obvious to the judge from the start that a closed material procedure was necessary. As the independent reviewer of terrorism litigation, David Anderson, explained to the Joint Committee on Human Rights,
	“there is no point in banging your head against a brick wall… if the exercise is plainly going to be futile.”
	In the Guantanamo Bay cases, which provoked the need to address the law and bring forward this reform, the court would have had to consider about a quarter of a million documents before determining the PII application and moving to a CMP. It would have had to consider a
	quarter of a million documents before moving beyond a preliminary issue. When I was Home Secretary I certainly issued PII certificates for intelligence material. In the arms to Iraq inquiry, I am glad to say that the judge confirmed that I had done what I was supposed to do: I had read every document—they were brought to me in boxes and put on the floor and required a whole day to consider. The Guantanamo cases would have required a full-time Minister to do nothing but wade through the PII certificates for months and months before the application could be made and further progress could take place. In some cases, the delay of going through that process could have detrimental impacts on other people affected by the issues in the case awaiting judgment.
	Equally, all parties might consent to a closed material procedure. If they consent, should the judge still be required to go through the time-consuming PII process? In the Maya Evans case, all parties consented to a closed material procedure as the only way to try the issues. The ruling in that judicial review case, which was with special advocates, changed Government policy on detentions in Afghanistan, directly affecting ongoing Government actions. Delays in that case to consider alternatives to closed material procedures could have meant that more individuals were exposed abroad to a policy that the court ultimately concluded was unlawful.
	I will give an indication of why I will not give a blanket assurance that we will accept all the House of Lords amendments. I do not think that the problems were properly considered, and we will bring forward the products of our thinking in Committee. As I have said, we continue to debate the powers the judge should have once a closed material procedure has been granted. Under the Bill, the court will have strong powers to require gisting, redaction and summaries. In particular, the Bill sets out—it is probably unnecessary—that to ensure a fair trial under article 6 of the European convention on human rights, the court can order disclosure of material notwithstanding the damage that would be caused to national security. In that situation, in order to disclose, the Government would have the opportunity, as they currently do under PII, to seek to bring an end to proceedings, or an aspect of proceedings, in order to avoid damage to national security. If the Government do not disclose material or elect not to provide a summary of material, the court can order the Government not to rely on it or to make concession or such other steps as the court might require.
	In brief, the Bill leaves it to the judge to decide what is necessary in any particular case, rather than seeking to impose disclosure requirements or to fetter the judge’s discretion in deciding whether to have a closed material procedure. I think that we should reflect on that in Committee. Let us not go into Committee with everyone saying, “What the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said is necessarily right and we will support the Bill so long as we sign up to that.” I think that some of the JCHR amendments raise serious issues that should be debated properly in this House and which the Government must be allowed to exercise their judgment on before reaching a final decision.

Guy Opperman: I conducted in excess of a dozen PII trials as a criminal barrister. Does the Minister accept that there is a fundamental difference between what he is proposing and the procedures under PII?

Kenneth Clarke: Yes, because we want a process whereby the judge can hear the evidence of the intelligence agencies in a closed—secret, if one likes—process, and that is not the purpose of PII. PII is a very old process that has developed over the years from simple beginnings, and I imagine that in the early cases—before my time—it was probably rather straightforward: if a Minister said he wanted public interest immunity, it was granted. The findings of Lord Justice Scott in the arms to Iraq inquiry —not at my expense, I am glad to say—rather upset that approach. PII is of course used flexibly in proper cases because judges and lawyers all want to hear evidence in open court whenever possible, but I think that we need to update all this. We are not abolishing public interest immunity, but I think that in many cases extending closed material procedures, which is what we are proposing, would be an altogether more sensible way of getting a proper judgment in the case.
	Let me turn to the provisions of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction.

Hazel Blears: I want to tease out the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s view on the balancing test, which is part of the House of Lords amendments. At the moment there is a balancing test stating that the judge, when deciding whether or not closed material procedures can be applied for, has to balance the degree of harm to the interests of national security with the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice. Balancing tests are notoriously difficult. One of the main problems with the Chahal case, which led to significant issues for this country’s national security, was whether the balancing test was in the right place, and most of us felt that it was not. If we are to have a balancing test in the legislation, it is in the part about whether proceedings are suitable; it is not in the part about when an application can be made. We need some clarity on the Government’s position with regard to the balancing test, because clearly the interests of national security are not always equivalent to the interests of an open proceeding, and that is a difficult balance to strike.

Kenneth Clarke: The balance is indeed difficult to draw. We have debated the balancing test on various occasions and in the past I have rather resisted it because it gives rise to the possibility of the judge saying, “Oh yes, there is a risk to national security. What a pity, never mind. I wish open justice to be done, so let’s take a chance with national security.” That is probably a somewhat broad-brush piece of opposition, and we are reflecting on the issue. The proper response to the right hon. Lady’s entirely sensible and pertinent question is probably best given in Committee, when we will have had more time to decide the position.

James Brokenshire: indicated assent.

Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend is nodding; he will be presenting our reactions.
	“Norwich Pharmacal” is the phrase used by lawyers to describe a process that grew up in the sphere of intellectual property law, in which someone is enabled to apply for the disclosure of evidence—documents, usually—relevant to a claim that they are making. It is used to force a third party who is mixed up, however
	innocently, in suspected wrongdoing, to disclose information that a claimant feels may be relevant to a case that they are bringing in some other jurisdiction, usually abroad.
	In 2008, as a result of ingenious arguments, the Norwich Pharmacal principle was extended to national security law. The purpose of proceedings under the principle now is for people involved in a legal process of some kind, usually overseas, seeking to obtain disclosure of intelligence material in the hands of the British Government.
	As the purpose of the proceedings is only disclosure—no other judgment is being sought—the Government do not have the option to withdraw from or settle proceedings; if the judge orders disclosure, there is no option but for the Government to release the secret intelligence. That has given rise to understandable fears that if a person shares information with the British Government’s agencies, British judges have the power to order the release of some of it and that person cannot be certain of being able to resist that.
	There is no point in my setting out obvious platitudes about the nature of intelligence work. If intelligence agencies are not able to guarantee to their sources, be they friendly overseas Governments or agents, that they can keep secrets, people will not share so much information with them. Lives will literally be at risk in some cases as will international co-operation on such vital issues as torture prevention and human rights.

Mark Field: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: I will give way and then seek to persuade the House that those fears are not fanciful or false; the problem is happening now.

Mark Field: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. I entirely agree; he has admirably put forward the concerns about Norwich Pharmacal and the historical accident that has arisen as far as national security cases are concerned. Was he not tempted, therefore, simply to exclude Norwich Pharmacal matters from national security—in other words, make it absolutely clear through Parliament that the Norwich Pharmacal arrangements should be regarded narrowly as being available only in intellectual property cases and should not apply to national security matters? Is he not taking us down a rather more convoluted route in the Bill?

Kenneth Clarke: The practical effect of the Bill is exactly as my hon. Friend recommends, although it may have been drafted with a few too many provisos and provisions because of the deep suspicion with which these things are regarded. Essentially, however, we do not think that Norwich Pharmacal should apply to intelligence material provided in confidence to the British security services.
	I will not take too long on this because the argument is perfectly straightforward, but I want to tell the House that these are not false fears. Over the past year, we have picked up concerns from human agents. They have always been concerned about the degree to which their relationships can be protected, of course, but they are now becoming really concerned about disclosure to the British courts. Sir Daniel Bethlehem, a former legal adviser to the Foreign Office, told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the flow of intelligence from the
	United States was being limited. He said that he did not want to exaggerate, but the point was that the trust of the United States had been weakened and that trust needed to be restored.
	[Official Report, 8 January 2013, Vol. 556, c. 3MC.]
	Arguments tend to break out as to whether agents have any reason to be fearful, but that is not totally the point. As long as, as a result of hearing about the extraordinary process called Norwich Pharmacal, other intelligence agencies and our agents think that there is always a risk of disclosure by the British courts, the damage is done. To follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), what on earth are we running that risk for?

Malcolm Rifkind: In support of what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said, I should say that the Intelligence and Security Committee has taken extensive evidence on the matter in both the United Kingdom and Washington in respect of the likelihood or actuality of damage to very important information that prevents or might prevent terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom. We are satisfied that my right hon. and learned Friend’s point is entirely valid and that the House should take it into account.

Kenneth Clarke: I close my case, as they say; there is no need for me to carry on addressing the House about Norwich Pharmacal. We wait to hear what points might be raised about it.
	I move on to part 1 of the Bill, which I think the House should have much more regard to. It deals with the important issue of parliamentary oversight of our security and intelligence agencies. I suggest to both sides of the House that if we wish to be reassured about the accountability of our security services and really try to guarantee to ourselves that they are not misbehaving, we should look to stronger parliamentary oversight as well as to more accountability to the courts.
	It is time to put the Intelligence and Security Committee, chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend, on a much stronger footing and to enhance its independence to strengthen the valuable work it has done so far. We have to give Parliament more effective oversight of the intelligence and security agencies.
	The ISC operates within arrangements established by Parliament in 1994, but the nature of the Committee’s work has changed dramatically. In the past 18 years, particularly since 9/11, the public profile, budgets and operational demands on the agencies have all significantly increased, but there has been no change in the statutory arrangements for oversight. In the past, the ISC has overseen operational matters but has done so relatively infrequently and generally at the direct invitation of the Prime Minister. The ISC has no statutory powers to oversee such matters. Its statutory remit is also limited to oversight of the security and intelligence agencies, although it has long heard evidence from the wider intelligence community.
	At the moment, the Prime Minister receives its report and appoints its members. Currently, the heads of the security and intelligence agencies are permitted, in certain circumstances, to withhold information from it. We can certainly improve on that. We need to give the ISC
	greater teeth to ensure that we can continue to have confidence in those who oversee the agencies on our behalf.
	The Bill provides that the ISC will in future be able to oversee the agencies’ operations, within appropriate constraints. The Committee will also in future report to Parliament, as well as the Prime Minister. Its members will be appointed by Parliament, after nomination by the Prime Minister. The power to withhold information from the ISC will move from the agency heads to the Secretary of State responsible for that agency—a Minister accountable to the House. It will be a parliamentary Committee. We are greatly strengthening our powers to hold accountable those who do such vital work for our country.

Andrew Tyrie: My right hon. and learned Friend said that the Intelligence and Security Committee will henceforth be accountable to Parliament. Will he be prepared to consider the proposals of the Wright Committee on parliamentary renewal—that the Chairman of the ISC should henceforth be elected by a secret ballot of the whole House, subject to a veto by the Prime Minister at the nomination stage? That was accepted unanimously by the Wright Committee and it has won widespread support. It would greatly enhance the credibility and sense of independence of the ISC Chairman.

Kenneth Clarke: I have the greatest respect for the Wright Committee and we will consider the matter further, although I am not instantly attracted by that proposal. We are moving to a situation in which the Chairman of the ISC will be elected by the Committee and the Committee itself will be elected by the whole House from a list approved first by the Prime Minister. On reflection, I think that the problem with a system whereby we could have said that the House can elect whoever it likes, subject to a prime ministerial veto, is that it would be an Exocet that was hugely embarrassing to use. It is not impossible—I hope that it is not too fanciful—to envisage a case where the security services have satisfied the Prime Minister that there is some problem with a particular Member of this House of which the wider world is completely unaware. [ Interruption. ] That is not unknown; I am sure that it has happened in the experience of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). The idea that the Prime Minister must suddenly issue a veto on the result of an election carried out in this House is probably a step too far, and I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), the Chairman of the ISC, agreed with me when we discussed this very matter not too long ago.

Malcolm Rifkind: indicated  assent .

Kenneth Clarke: My right hon. and learned Friend nods his head in approval.
	The arrangements that we are proposing for a stronger Committee will in some cases be underpinned by a memorandum of understanding between the Government and the Committee. The MOU will set out the arrangements at a level of detail far beyond that which need be put in this Bill. We have reached the stage of discussing the terms of that MOU with the Committee. I have had some extremely constructive discussions with my right
	hon. and learned Friend and other members of the Committee about the Bill. We will bring forward other amendments if necessary to make clear the ISC’s increased connection to Parliament and provide it with some statutory immunities to assist in this work.
	I apologise for the length of time that I have taken in introducing the Bill, but I have given way generously. It is the kind of Bill where there should not be serious argument about the principle, but the details are extremely important in a country which has high regard to the rule of law and does not to want to risk abuse of process in any proper case. That is why I commend its Second Reading to the House. To reject it and stay with the status quo would be to continue a quite intolerable situation that is not only unacceptable to the agencies, which cannot defend their reputations, but should be unacceptable to the taxpayer, who has to pay for some of these settlements, and to any citizen who wants a judge to have the chance to make a judgment on the issues.
	In my opinion, for all the reasons I have given, the Bill strengthens the accountability of our intelligence agencies and GCHQ to the courts and to this House. It supports our belief in justice, the rule of law and the liberal, democratic principles that underpin this country. I trust that the House will therefore be content to give it a Second Reading.

Sadiq Khan: The Minister without Portfolio has spoken for exactly one hour. Everyone will be pleased to know that my contribution will be far shorter.
	Before us is a Bill that is less bad than when the Government first published it. It is less bad because of the changes made to it by colleagues in the other place, which have started to restore some equilibrium in the great balancing act that we face between our nation’s security and the rights of individuals up and down the country. I want to make it clear, up front and in very simple terms, that Labour Members fully recognise the very important issues that the Government are seeking to grapple with in this Bill. The Minister called for a serious debate, and I hope that we get one this afternoon and in Committee.
	Our intelligence agencies do untold amounts of good work in keeping the citizens of this country safe. I should like again to put on record our appreciation of this role. Our intelligence agencies are fighting to defend our democratic values, so it is only right that those same agencies should be subjected to those same democratic values, which include judicial and parliamentary scrutiny. That is why part 1 is so important. It outlines attempts progressively to reform the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, giving it a formal statutory footing with improvements in how the membership and Chair are chosen. I agree with what the Minister said about this, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) will say more on that at the conclusion of the debate.
	The issue in part 2 is one of allowing justice to take its course, with those on the end of alleged true abuses of power and indiscretions allowed to seek full and proper recourse, and with the Government also in a position whereby they can defend themselves. I intend to focus my remarks on this part, especially given the
	changes made by colleagues in the other place. The Minister informed the House that he will accept some of them, albeit not yet all of them.
	The marriage of justice and security in the Bill’s title hints at the difficult but not impossible balancing act that is required. It is simply wrong to argue that the achievement of one is to the detriment of the other. Those who take this view are failing to show sufficient respect for the nature of the issues. Openness and transparency of justice is a hugely important principle. Any deviation from this hundreds-of-years-long tradition should be considered only in the most extreme of circumstances and must be accompanied by transparent checks and balances. The Bill, as first published by the Government, failed in that respect.
	At this point, I must turn my attention to the role of the Minister without Portfolio, who kept hold of the responsibility for this Bill after the reshuffle. The House will know that I have a huge amount of respect for him, and—dare I say it?—affection as well. He is a national treasure. It is worth considering the suspicion that many felt as to why the Prime Minister decided that he should retain control of the Bill. It is hard not to conclude that it was for his “liberal credentials”. The suspicion was that the Prime Minister thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would make a better sell of the proposals on secret courts than his successor as Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who does not have quite the same “liberal credentials.”
	That may well be the case. In any event, I am afraid that the Minister has made a hash of the Bill up until now. He has rushed headlong into legislation, despite guarantees to the contrary. He has failed to listen to the concerns of a very wide range of groups and experts. He has criticised those who have genuine concerns, as he did again today, building up straw men only to knock them down. I am afraid that on some occasions he has given the impression that he has failed to understand the details of his own Bill. I do not know about pushing at an open door, but he has now been on the receiving end of three humiliating defeats in the House of Lords and forced to concede further changes or face the prospect of even more defeats.
	Part 2 includes clauses 6 to 13 on the introduction of closed material proceedings, or CMPs, into our civil justice system. CMPs will allow the Government to hold in secret parts of court hearings in which an individual is seeking recourse through our civil courts. These are civil actions for damages for claims ranging from allegations of rendition to allegations of complicity in torture and the most serious forms of tort there are.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sadiq Khan: Just this once. I want to make progress because many other Members want to get in.

Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that in cases of allegations of torture and extraordinary rendition it has been the devil’s own job to get any information, transparency or accountability, and this has gone on for a very long time. Does he not think that this Bill misses an opportunity to lift the cover on the whole miserable period since 2001 when we have had extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay?

Sadiq Khan: I will come to some of the huge improvements made in the other place.
	The Government claim that they are unable to defend themselves in court because the nature of the evidence they would need to deploy is so bound up with sensitive intelligence as to make it impossible for it to be made public. As a result, they are having to settle cases and pay out-of-court compensation. By allowing CMPs in situations involving national security, the Government are seeking to avoid situations where cases are not seen through to their conclusion and avoid the premature payment of compensation.
	Let us go right back to the very beginning of this legislative process. The original proposals that were published in the Green Paper involved huge issues. The Minister said at the time that after the consultation on the Green Paper, he expected a White Paper, followed by a Bill. We had serious problems with the Green Paper, but we were encouraged by the sensible pace at which he proposed to progress.
	As I have said, the original Green Paper was roundly criticised by others for being too broadly drafted in its coverage of CMPs. After the consultation, the Government decided to jettison secret inquests, making a virtue, as has happened again today, of this concession. I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion and the non-governmental organisation, Inquest, for successfully fighting that barmy idea. Many suspect, however, that the inclusion of inquests in the first place was a wheeze—an idea that would be later binned and presented as a major concession. It is the oldest trick in the book.
	The process then changed: there was no White Paper. Instead, we jumped straight from the Green Paper to a Bill, which, while including inquests, did not take on board the wide range of concerns that had been raised about the proposals. In many people’s eyes, the Bill’s process for deciding when there should be a CMP was worse than the process set out in the Green Paper. Even more power was concentrated in the hands of Ministers to decide what would stay secret, while judges had fewer powers to take a balanced view on whether it was in the national interest to keep something secret or whether it was in the public interest to disclose it.
	It is on this point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees with many independent experts, including judges, about how the process will work. He insisted that the CMP process was a judge-led, balancing exercise and that it was not a Minister-led process. He repeated that several times, criticising those who dared to question his assertions, and he has done so again today. I and many others have picked him up on this, because the Bill as drafted was clear: it was not a judge-led process. In the old clause 6, there was no balancing exercise. It was a grab for power by Ministers. They would have decided what stayed secret and what did not. Judges were left with no option but to grant a CMP. The word used was “must”, not “may”. It was simply unacceptable. The power that that would have handed to the Executive to keep material secret was unacceptable and I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has accepted the change made in the other place.

Kenneth Clarke: Extraordinary assertions keep being made outside this House that the Bill allows Ministers to decide whether there should be closed
	material proceedings, but that is complete nonsense. The “must” to “may” amendment arises in circumstances where the judge who takes the decision decides that national security would be at issue. The original Bill said that once he finds that there is a risk to national security, he “must” have a closed material procedure. Such is the concern of all these critics that we have made it clear that we will accept a wider discretion, so even when the judge—not the Minister—is satisfied that national security is at risk, he “may” have a closed material procedure. I submit that people should think about the possibility that that leaves the judge with all the discretion in the world to think about all the other issues that might mean there is some compelling reason in a particular case not to allow a CMP, even when national security is threatened. I simply do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman—he is not the first; I am not singling him out—and others keep asserting that Ministers will decide on that when the Government gave up that position months ago.

Sadiq Khan: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not practised law for a while, but he is wrong. The old Bill clearly said that if a Minister decides that there is a threat to national security, the judge must order a CMP. The improvements made by the House of Lords changed that and I am glad that he has accepted them.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman has lashed out—he did it again today—at what he called the “reactionary” elements of the civil liberties community. He is sniggering, but he will recall that he was once a part of that community. Does he really believe that David Anderson QC, the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, fits that description? I remind him of what Mr Anderson said about the Bill’s original proposal that Ministers would trigger a closed hearing:
	“That proposal seems to me profoundly wrong in principle. The decision whether to order a CMP is properly for the court in the exercise of its case management functions.”
	He also said that a CMP should be used only if
	“the just resolution of a case cannot be obtained by other procedural means (including not only PII but other established means such as confidentiality rings and hearings in camera).”
	It seems that it was not just me who got it wrong; according to the Minister without Portfolio, his own independent reviewer of terrorism legislation also got it wrong.
	Advocates also appear to have got it wrong by not understanding the Bill as previously drafted. Many esteemed legal Members of the other place, such as Lord Pannick, Lord Macdonald and Lord Phillips, also got it wrong if the Minister without Portfolio is correct.
	On 19 November, the day the other place considered the Bill on Report, an editorial in The Times—hardly a member of the “reactionary” civil liberties community—said:
	“The Justice and Security Bill being considered in the House of Lords today cannot be allowed to stand in its current form”.
	The Daily Mail, which is not historically known to be a “reactionary” element of the civil liberties community, either, has also consistently opposed the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s original proposals.
	I accept that some have argued strenuously against the whole principle of CMPs in our civil courts. Others have focused their energies on ensuring that the Bill has proper checks and balances in place.

Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Sadiq Khan: I will give way to the Minister without Portfolio. Clearly, one hour was not enough for him.

Kenneth Clarke: We are merely warming up. To refresh the right hon. Gentleman’s memory, I have a copy of the original Bill. I think he is talking about a debate that was last sensibly carried out when the Green Paper, in which we said that it would be for a Minister to decide on this matter, was considered. Clause 6(2) of the old Bill says:
	“The court must, on an application under subsection (1), make such a declaration if the court considers that…(b) such a disclosure would be damaging to the interests of national security.”
	We published the Bill on the basis that it was a judge’s decision. We are making the judge’s discretion wider. He does not have to have a CMP. Even if he is satisfied that national security is at risk, he “may” make a declaration, which is what has been proposed to us by the House of Lords.

Sadiq Khan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman can use the present or past tense, but the reality is that, previously, the judge would have to order a CMP if the Minister said that there were national security issues. There was no balancing exercise. The changes made in the other place mean that the process is now judge-led and I am glad that the Minister without Portfolio welcomes them. I am glad that legal experts agree with me. We will have a chance to come back to the issue later.
	The defeats inflicted on the Government in the other place were truly stunning—the Minister without Portfolio used the phrase, “Pushing at an open door”—with majorities of 100, 105 and 87. Those defeats mean that, as the Bill stands, there will be an equality of arms between the two parties in a civil action and a full judicial balancing of the competing public interest. Moreover, if CMPs are to be granted, it must be as a last resort—I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not like that change made in the other place—and, importantly, there will now be judicial balancing within the CMP.
	I have no doubt that there would have been more defeats had the Minister in the other place, Lord Wallace, not seen sense and conceded on other amendments. The scale of those Government defeats is testament to the enormous levels of unhappiness of distinguished legal experts and serious people with the Bill as originally published.
	I pay tribute to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, particularly its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), for the work it has done. Its amendments—the Opposition supported the majority of them—were the basis of the victories in the House of Lords. We will seek to make other changes to the Bill in Committee, in order to ensure greater fairness. We will oppose any attempts to water down the improvements that have already been made.
	I want to touch briefly on clauses 14 and 15, which address the so-called Norwich Pharmacal cases. They prevent the disclosure of “sensitive information” that the Secretary of State certifies it would be contrary to the interests of national security or international relations to disclose. In those cases, a party seeks an order for the disclosure of evidence in order to pursue or defend a case against a third party, possibly outside the jurisdiction, as in the cases that have attracted attention in which the defendant—that is, the Government—is to some degree mixed up in events, perhaps by quite innocently coming into possession of some information.
	Disclosure via Norwich Pharmacal is, we are told, already seriously undermining confidence among our most important partners, including the United States of America. That is an important matter for our intelligence agencies, which I have already paid tribute to, because they probably work more closely with their colleagues in the USA than those in any other country. We understand the importance of the control principle.
	Although there may be an issue that needs to be addressed and a case for regularising the situation created by the Norwich Pharmacal cases, we question whether the Government’s approach is too broad. We will test that in Committee. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, agrees with our position and has publicly accepted that there is
	“a case for restricting the novel application of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction to national security information.”
	He concluded, however, that what is now clause 14 was too broad in its application.
	We do not intend to oppose the Bill on Second Reading. However, I hope that I have made it clear that we wish not only to hold on to the improvements that were made to the Bill in the other place, but to use the Committee stage to seek further improvements. How we vote on Report and Third Reading will be determined by the Government’s actions in Committee between now and then.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. There is a 10-minute limit on contributions from now on, with the usual injury time for up to two interventions.

Malcolm Rifkind: As Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I will concentrate my comments on the proposed reforms of the ISC in part 1 of the Bill.
	It is easy for me and the Committee to welcome part 1, because 95% of it is exactly what we recommended to the Government many months ago. We pay tribute to them for being willing to accept such a radical change in the powers relating to independent oversight in the United Kingdom. The system has been imperfect since 1994, as has been commented on in the past. I can say with confidence that if the proposals in part 1 are implemented, the United Kingdom will have a system of independent intelligence oversight with the powers that are necessary to make it effective. It will be one of the most powerful systems of independent oversight in the western world.
	It is worth remembering for a moment why independent oversight is crucial in an open society. Our intelligence agencies have and need to have powers which, if used by other citizens, would be a breach of the criminal law. Given that situation, the agencies are the first to acknowledge that it is essential in a parliamentary democracy for there to be not only Government accountability, but accountability to Parliament and the public. The agencies use some £2 billion of resources. That is a lot of money and it has to be justified, particularly in difficult times.
	From time to time, it will be necessary, as it has been in the past, to criticise the agencies when something foolish, unwise or unacceptable takes place. However, the agencies also appreciate that the power of genuine, independent oversight means that they can be defended if, as happens occasionally, they are unfairly criticised or attacked and cannot defend themselves. For obvious reasons, if the Government try to defend them, there is seen to be a potential conflict of interests. That does not apply in the case of genuine, independent oversight. For example, in the 7/7 bombings inquiry, the Intelligence and Security Committee was able to point to some of the unfair accusations that were being made.
	What are the reforms that are crucial in transforming the role of independent oversight in the United Kingdom? First, until now—including as I speak—the Intelligence and Security Committee has been a committee of parliamentarians, but not a Committee of Parliament. That is going to change. For the first time, the last word on whether the proposed members of the Committee are acceptable will be with the House of Commons and the House of Lords. As has been said, the Chairman of the Committee will in future be appointed not by the Prime Minister, as I was, but by the Committee itself.
	The Committee will report to Parliament. At the moment, it reports to the Prime Minister and only through the Prime Minister do its reports reach this place. Some redactions will, of course, be necessary. There will be occasions, as there have been in the past, when the ISC reports on such sensitive matters that it will, in practice, report only to the Prime Minister because the material overwhelmingly cannot come into the public domain. Nevertheless, for the first time, we will have a parliamentary Committee that is parliamentary in the sense of other Committees, except where the need for the respect of secret information continues to require some differences of treatment.
	The second major change is in relation to operations. I will differ slightly from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio in saying that the extent to which the Intelligence and Security Committee has already been involved, through agreement with the agencies, in looking at operations and sensitive material is not exceptional or occasional, but substantial. Nevertheless, there has been no statutory basis to it. That is crucial, because operations are what the agencies are about to a considerable degree and are where parliamentary and public concern can be most manifest. It is profoundly unsatisfactory that, until now, there has been no meaningful statutory role for the Committee in relation to operations.

Alan Beith: I point out to my right hon. and learned Friend that that situation means that refusal is possible and is too easy in circumstances where embarrassment is involved. I can think of at least one case in which I feel that that happened during my time on the Committee.

Malcolm Rifkind: I agree with my right hon. Friend. There has to be an ultimate right for the Prime Minister to decline to allow the Committee to receive certain information. However, until now, the agencies have been able to exercise that power. To be fair to them, they have rarely, if ever, tried to do so.
	On operations, the statutory basis is crucial. The Committee has accepted that our oversight of operations should be retrospective. We do not wish to interfere in ongoing operations. That would be unreasonable and would put an intolerable burden on the agencies. As long as the oversight is retrospective and there is a significant national interest—we will have debates over what that phrase means—I believe that there is a sound basis.
	Thirdly, until now, the Intelligence and Security Committee has been able only to request information from the agencies, not require it. To be fair to the agencies, they have not, for all practical purposes, ever refused us information, but they have been in control of the information that has been provided. Real problems have emerged over the years. On some occasions, it has been found, subsequent to the publication of a report, that important documents had simply not been made available to the Committee. That may not have been done in bad faith, but the consequence was embarrassment for the agencies and for the system of independent oversight. That cannot be allowed to continue.
	We have also found that when the agencies have responded to a requirement of the courts, the resources and the time that they have devoted to finding every relevant document have been slightly greater than for a Committee that can only request information and not require it. That is going to change. I pay tribute to the agencies for accepting the need to make this change. The Committee will now have the power to require information from the agencies, including information on operations, subject to one or two important safeguards.
	I come now to the crucial difference. Until now, the problem has been that although the agencies hold vast amounts of information on any given subject, we do not expect them, when we request information, to fill several forklift trucks with information and dump it at our offices. That would be absurd, and we will not expect that when we require information in the future. However, until now, the agencies have done the editing themselves. Even if it is done entirely in good faith, that does not enable the Committee to be confident that it has seen all the information that it would wish to see before it brings forward its proposals.
	We have proposed that we will appoint additional staff—assistants to the Committee, who will be our employees and be answerable to us—who will go to the agencies when we require information on a particular subject from them and discuss all the information, including the raw material, that they have in their files. I pay tribute again to the Government and the agencies for agreeing to that. I hope that there will be a process of agreement and discussion, but at the end of the day,
	it will be our staff who decide which parts of the available material the Committee is likely to want to see. We, Parliament and the public will therefore be able to have confidence that the decision will be taken by the Committee itself, not by the agencies, however much they would be trying to do their best in good faith.
	That is an enormous culture change for MI6, MI5 and GCHQ to accept. For the first time in their history they will be not just providing information to people who are not employees of the agencies or part of the Government—we are not part of the Government, and in future we will be part of Parliament—but allowing them to come into their offices, see material and discuss what the ISC would like to evaluate. I pay tribute to the agencies for accepting that. Of course they have some reservations and concerns, and a memorandum of understanding is being discussed. It is referred to in the Bill and will be published in due course. It will explain in greater detail how the system will work on a day-to-day basis. We may have to review it in a year or two in the light of experience.
	I pay tribute also to both Her Majesty’s Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition, because such a change is not just a potential rod for the back of the agencies but will occasionally create problems for the Government of the day. Both Front-Bench teams know that the Bill will mean that intelligence oversight will have the teeth that it has not had in the past, because it will be on a statutory basis and include the real powers that I have described. That is why I and the Committee feel confident in saying that we will have a tougher, more effective and more reliable system of oversight than we have ever had in our history or than can currently be found in almost any country in the western world or globally.

Hazel Blears: I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his leadership of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I do not think we would have quite such robust proposals had it not been for his work.
	May I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of one small point? As the Bill is drafted, it would prevent the Committee from examining ongoing operations. If the Government were to ask us to consider a matter that was ongoing and not retrospective, that would be forbidden. The Bill therefore needs to be amended on that point.

Malcolm Rifkind: I must first reciprocate the right hon. Lady’s compliment. She has made an enormous and much-respected contribution to the Committee’s work.
	The right hon. Lady raises an important point. Of course we accept that our oversight of operations must be retrospective and on matters of significant national interest. However, there have been circumstances in which the Prime Minister of the day has invited the Committee to examine an ongoing operation on some specific matter. In addition, there are sometimes occasions when, because of leaks and press awareness, an ongoing operation becomes a matter of public discussion and debate. There must be flexibility in the Bill to allow the Committee to examine such matters. The House should feel confident that, although we wish a number of improvements to be made in Committee, we are entering a new phase of intelligence oversight.
	I want to say a few words about part 2 of the Bill. A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends who serve on the Committee will undoubtedly wish to speak about it as well. It goes without saying that closed material proceedings are not very satisfactory, but in the imperfect world in which we live, the choice is sometimes between good solutions and bad solutions but more often between bad solutions and worse solutions. As has been said, public interest immunity is not a feasible alternative. The £2 million settlement that was made just a couple of weeks ago was a case to which intelligence material would have been central if it had gone to court. There could not have been PII, because that would have excluded all the material. That leaves us to introduce a system that, as the former Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf has said, is certainly preferable to PII. I say to hon. Members who still have their doubts that the system is not perfect, but it is a lot better than the one we have at the moment. That is why it is in the national interest to support the Bill.

Paul Goggins: It is a pleasure to follow the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), and I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) about his leadership on matters concerning the Bill and our general work. It has been a genuine pleasure to work with him over the past two years.
	The debates that we have had on national security over the past decade have been among the most important exchanges in the House over that period. They have taken us to the heart of the balance between individual liberty, including the rights of those who are suspected of plotting terror, and our collective security, including the most fundamental human right of all, the right to life.
	As we have responded to the new threats of global terror from al-Qaeda, it would have been a miracle if Governments had been able to get everything absolutely right first time. As I have said before in the House, I accept that the proposals for 90-day and 42-day pre-charge detention went too far, as an issue of practicality as well as one of principle, and Parliament was right to block them. Equally, the judges were right to deem detention without trial non-compliant with the rights of defendants. That, too, had to be replaced.
	It remains to be seen whether the reforms of the past two years have gone too far in taking the balance away from public safety. I certainly do not accept the narrative that everything that has happened since 9/11—all the extra resources provided to the intelligence and security agencies and the stronger powers that Parliament has decided on to deal with suspects—are a victory for the securocrats, who hoodwink Ministers into illiberal measures to undermine our basic freedoms. The simple fact is that many thousands of lives have been saved because of the actions that Governments and Parliament have taken. At the same time, suspects have still been able to enforce their rights in the courts, and judges have increasingly ordered the disclosure of information that would have been held secret in the past.
	The Bill deals specifically with the balance between greater scrutiny and the limits that ought to apply in a certain small number of civil cases. The Intelligence and
	Security Committee has played an important role in scrutinising the agencies, as its chairman said. That role far exceeds what was envisaged in 1994 and includes the close examination of some ongoing operations. However, the ISC will be in a stronger position when it is a Committee of Parliament and has greater powers and resources to ensure that it can get the information that it requires rather than simply trusting that the agencies are giving it what it has requested.
	I place on record the tremendous debt that all members of the ISC, and therefore all Members of Parliament, owe the small, dedicated team of staff who work to support it in all its work. The chairman of the ISC alluded to a number of issues that still need to be ironed out. I suggest that the starting point for our deliberations in Committee should be that the Bill must not prevent the ISC from doing anything that it is already doing in practice.
	As we have heard in the opening Front-Bench speeches, the most controversial part of the Bill relates to the closed material procedure. I do not intend to dwell on the background to it, because others have spoken about the importance of the control principle and the difficulties that the agencies currently face in defending themselves against civil claims. However, I want to make two points. The first is to confirm that the increasing reluctance of the United States intelligence community to share life-saving secrets with the United Kingdom is not a made-up scare story. I have seen and heard, in frank exchanges with colleagues in Washington when the Committee visited last year and earlier this year, that that is a substantial problem that simply has to be dealt with.
	Secondly, the agencies’ desire to defend themselves is not about suppressing the truth, and it is not primarily about saving the taxpayer the millions of pounds that it is currently costing, although those are substantial sums. It is about being able to defend their reputation and the high standards of those who take risks every day to protect our freedoms. Clearly mistakes have been made and individuals have been mistreated, but I simply cannot accept the casual assertion that is often made, or at least implied, that the agencies are inevitably the bad guys while the claimants are always the blameless victims.
	The comments of Lord Phillips and others during the consideration of the Bill in the other place, and the support that those independent-minded politicians gave for the closed material procedure, were very welcome. It is fair to say that the Bill has been improved in the other place. It is right that judges have discretion and decide whether the closed material procedure is appropriate. It is right that the courts must decide whether, on balance, the interests of national security are likely to outweigh the interests of fairness and open justice. The question of how that balance is to be struck, as the Minister without Portfolio said, is likely to be debated in detail in Committee. I was pleased to hear that he and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) intend to promote discussion in relation to PII. Under the Bill, consideration of PII should always come first, before the closed material procedure. As the Minister without Portfolio said, that could produce
	long delays in the judicial process, even though the outcome could be staring the court in the face from the outset.
	In the short time remaining, there are two more issues that I should like to raise. If I am feeling brave enough, I might even table some amendments about them in due course. In relation to the order-making power, which was in clause 11 but has now been dropped for reasons of political consideration—presumably to make sure that the Bill completes its passage and that the main provisions remain—the cause of the concerns that prompted that power, which would allow the closed material procedure in other proceedings, has not gone away.
	There are two particular types of proceedings that are relevant. The first is inquests, as I have said to the Minister before. If there is secret intelligence that cannot be revealed because it would result in the disclosure of sources, methodologies and so on, but which explained the cause of death, the coroner at the inquest should be able to see it. It might be possible in most cases not to have a closed material procedure. Lady Justice Hallett did a fine job in making sure that intelligence could be considered at the 7/7 inquest without the need for a closed material procedure, but I would not rule it out in future. The order-making power originally included in clause 11 would have provided an opportunity for Ministers, as and when cases arose.
	I am thinking in particular of more than 30 historic inquests that have still to be heard in Northern Ireland and where the deaths involved the police or Army. That is an issue that will not go away. I have raised it with the Minister, and with other Ministers, and I have yet to hear one disagree with my assertion that if it is right to have a closed material procedure in civil cases, it is right to have it in inquests. I am thinking, too, of proceedings in relation to the judicial review of decisions to revoke the licences of convicted terrorists who have been released from prison, but where there is intelligence that suggests that they are again engaging in terrorist activity.

Hazel Blears: My right hon. Friend has pursued the issue of inquests with huge tenacity, and he makes an almost irrefutable point: how are we to get a proper decision in an inquest unless the full information can be put before the coroner? Certainly in the case of the historic inquests in Northern Ireland, inevitably, by its very nature, that information will be private and secret information from the intelligence agencies. I have yet to hear an answer from the Government on that.

Paul Goggins: I do not make light of the issues. If intelligence were shared with a coroner, but not with the family of the deceased, that would be a massive step, but it is better that we should know the cause of death rather than the whole thing remain a mystery. I am therefore grateful to my right hon. Friend for her intervention.

Mark Durkan: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised that I beg to differ strongly on that point. The idea that we can make a contribution to resolving issues of the past in Northern Ireland and all these inquests that have not taken place by creating a closed material procedure simply will not wash, not least in the light of the implications of the de Silva report
	and the issues for many families, not just the Finucane family, in relation to some of the revelations, never mind the material that was not disclosed by de Silva.

Paul Goggins: As ever, I warmly welcome the intervention of my hon. Friend, even though for some years we have disagreed on that point. It is good to know that he continues to make the point and that we continue to debate the issue. He may be interested in my next point which relates to the judicial review of a decision to revoke the licence of a convicted terrorist who has been released from prison, and where there is intelligence to suggest that that individual is again engaged in terrorist activity.
	I shall refer to my specific experience in Northern Ireland. In 2008, I revoked the licence of a leading member of the Real IRA who was a convicted terrorist and had been allowed out of prison. Intelligence given to me made it perfectly clear that he was again involved in organising terrorist activity. That intelligence came from the Security Service. He did not like the fact that I revoked his licence and he went back to prison, but he challenged me for more than 12 months on that decision. In the end, the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The outcome was that he had to be released into the community, though he was due to be released a few months after that date in any event.
	The court made it clear that I had behaved perfectly reasonably and lawfully throughout, but it demanded that more of the information on which I made my decision should be given to the individual than the Security Service could possibly have allowed, so he walked free. I simply say to the Minister—and it will be interesting to see whether the Under-Secretary will comment on this in his winding-up speech—that the issue will not go away, especially as an increasing number of convicted terrorists will come out of prison in the foreseeable future. I suggest that this is something that needs to be looked at.
	Finally, I agree that the closed material procedure used by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, and included in the Bill, is not a perfect procedure, but to work as best as it can it requires the co-operation and advocacy of the special advocates who represent claimants or defendants. I do not criticise special advocates because they express strong opinions, and I do not question their motives, but if Parliament decides that the provision of a closed material procedure is a proportionate response to the risks that we face, it is absolutely vital that special advocates, like the rest of us, do whatever they can to make the system work. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that he is engaging in a new initiative with special advocates that will mean that they will strive to make sure that they can represent their clients in the best way possible. The Bill is an important further step. It was improved in the other place, and I am sure that it will be improved in Committee.

Alan Beith: Having served on the Intelligence and Security Committee for more than a decade after it was first established, I warmly welcome the action of Ministers in introducing these new provisions. I have some slight reservations about improvements that are needed, but the measure is a good indication of the importance that the Government attach to the effective oversight of intelligence.
	Much of my time on the Committee was deeply rewarding, and gave me a great deal of respect for the people who work in our intelligence services or assist them. Sometimes, however, it was like drilling into hard rock, and the drill had not got through the rock by the time I left the Committee. There were still many areas where the Committee did not have the information that it ought to have had to make the right kinds of judgment.
	The value of the Committee rests only partly on its reports, which it makes to the Prime Minister. In future, it will make reports to Parliament. There has been reference to an annual report: the Committee makes numerous reports on different matters, and occasionally it has to make a report exclusively to the Prime Minister because none of the content can be revealed, so provision is made for that. The Committee’s value also rests on the fact that it gives confidence to the House and to colleagues that there are people who have enough access to know whether there is likely to be incompetence, illegality or unacceptable behaviour going on. The Committee provides reassurance that if that were the case, it would challenge it. To do so, it needs depth of knowledge, which means being aware of what is going on operationally.
	Some of the definitions in the Bill are capable of benign use, but also to hostile use, and could be used to restrict information. I do not think that that is the intention, but they could be improved significantly. The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) made a point about ongoing operations, and I think that that is a limiting provision. When does an operation end? Many of our operations against terrorism are ongoing for as long as we think there is a threat, but we have to know what is happening. If we look back to the period leading up to the Finucane murder, for example, it would have been wrong, if the ISC had existed then, for it not to have had some understanding of the relationship between the Security Service and military units such as the force research unit and the basis on which information might be released by agencies and get into the hands of paramilitary organisations. The Committee needs that level of understanding to meet the test I described, so the wording needs to be adapted. It would be wrong, and a terrible mistake, if the Committee knew who was serving as agents and what handlers were finding in particular cases at particular times. That information should be kept as narrowly as possible, but allowing understanding of the operation, why it is being conducted and on what lines is significant.

Malcolm Rifkind: My right hon. Friend may like to know that part of the intention of the reforms is to ensure that we receive regular—probably quarterly— reports on the spectrum of agency activity, including operations, subject to retrospection and significant national interest. That gives us a broader awareness of the totality of agencies’ activities than has been possible in the past.

Alan Beith: That is very helpful. There is a success story here: the Committee is still building the relationships necessary to give the confidence I described earlier. I pay tribute to those who have been involved in this on the Committee side as well as on the Government side. There will be occasions, as there have been in the past, when the public fear that power within the intelligence sphere is being used inappropriately or, indeed, not
	effectively. A democratically elected body must therefore be able to provide reassurance that if something goes wrong it will know about it and try to do something about it.
	The other part of the Bill deals with closed proceedings, which are also closely related to intelligence. I emphasise that we are discussing civil proceedings, not prosecutions. Closed material proceedings are unwelcome, but it is difficult to see an alternative. They are necessary to protect the operational effectiveness of intelligence services, including the secrecy of sources. The control principle of foreign intelligence is fundamental to intelligence operations: people do not give away their country’s intelligence unless they know it will not be misused.
	That is not a one-way process—other nations sometimes forget the control principle. I recall a rendition case in which our US allies did not observe the principle. Indeed, the Committee reported on it because the intelligence was provided on the basis that action would not be taken, yet it was used to provide the basis for an action. That was an example of the control principle not being applied, but we must apply it; otherwise, we will not gather the intelligence we need to protect our citizens.
	I pay tribute to the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which the Justice Committee decided was doing the work and should be allowed to get on with it. Boundary lines between our two Committees are often drawn, but the Joint Committee’s excellent work contributed hugely to their lordships making the Bill more acceptable to those of us who come at it from a more liberal standpoint. Their lordships made it quite clear that although the Executive apply for closed material proceedings, the judge decides.
	The original subsection (2) of clause 11, which would have allowed the extension of closed material proceedings into other areas, was removed by a welcome Government amendment. Their lordships passed an amendment on considering alternatives such as public interest immunity and a strict necessity test. The amendment appeared to be desirable, although my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) today indicated that it could lead to some cumbersome processes, so it will be appropriate for the Committee to look a little more closely at it.
	A court will be required to balance national security with fairness, transparency and the need for open justice. The amendment that was unsuccessfully proposed to bring that process continuously into closed material proceedings was unrealistic—it is pretty difficult to satisfy foreign allies that we will apply the control principle if the question is being reopened in proceedings daily. The Government have indicated that they will accept the provision under which either side will be able to invoke closed material proceedings. I find it hard to envisage the circumstances in which a plaintiff would do so, but equality of arms requires that provision. I do not know why the Government resist the amendment proposing an annual report on the use of closed material proceedings—a fairly simple requirement—but perhaps such proceedings will not be so frequent and only a biennial report will be necessary.
	As a result of proceedings in the other place we are now close to achieving a reasonably satisfactory balance in using difficult and unwelcome powers to ensure that
	information can be put before a court. None of us would want to have to use the process, but without it we will not be able to decide cases on the evidence available.
	Another matter with which the Bill deals is the more general application of the Norwich Pharmacal principle to intelligence, on which the Government are right to act. I note the Intelligence and Security Committee’s suggestion, which the Justice Committee can look at, on how we limit its application so that we more specifically refer to foreign intelligence and the control principle or information that would impair the effectiveness of our security operations. The Government must act to defend our ability to acquire intelligence from elsewhere.
	Further improvements might be possible to make it clear that a gisting process can work in cases where the special advocate realises that he cannot effectively challenge or assess evidence without more information that is in the possession of only the plaintiff. We must find some way of resolving that. We cannot allow the present position to continue, but we must get the Bill into the best state possible.

Hywel Francis: I welcome the contribution of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who joined me last week in seeking—and, I think, securing—clarification from the Prime Minister of the Government’s intentions. May I say how pleased I am by the desire among Members on both Front Benches to improve the Bill in Committee?
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, spent a long time scrutinising the proposal before the House today. We took the unusual step of holding an inquiry into the Green Paper that preceded the Bill because some of the proposals in the Green Paper constituted such a radical departure from the country’s constitutional tradition of open justice and fairness that we thought they deserved the most careful scrutiny.
	Our examination of the Green Paper revealed serious human rights concerns about a number of the proposals. The Government accepted some of our recommendations on the Green Paper, and when the Bill was introduced in the other place they made some changes to the original proposals. The Government’s decision not to extend closed material procedures to inquests and the narrowing of the scope of the proposals to national security material were particularly welcome.
	The Bill as introduced still represented a radical departure from our traditions of fair and open justice. Amendments made in the other place, based on some of the recommendations made by my Committee, have improved the Bill, but I want to explain why the Government still have a long way to go in improving this measure before they can plausibly claim that it is compatible with British traditions of fairness and openness, of which this House has been a proud defender.
	Our starting point must be a recognition of how radical a departure from our common law constitution it is to extend closed material procedures to civil proceedings. During my Committee's scrutiny of the Bill the Government appeared to be in denial about this, but every other witness before our inquiry agreed about the enormity of what the Government propose. Let us not forget that in
	the case of Al-Rawi the Supreme Court refused to countenance such a radical change by judicial development of the common law.
	Why does the Bill amount to such a radical departure? There are two main reasons. First, we in this country have always enjoyed a right to an adversarial trial of a civil claim. This includes the right to know the case against us and the evidence on which it is based, the opportunity to respond to evidence and arguments made by the other side, and the opportunity to call witnesses to support our case and to cross-examine opposing witnesses.
	The second main reason why the Bill amounts to a radical departure from our constitutional traditions is that it derogates from the principle of open justice—the principle that litigation should be conducted in public and that judgments should be given in public, so that the media can report fully and accurately to the public on what the courts decide. One of the central questions for the House is this: have the Government demonstrated, by reference to sufficiently compelling evidence, the necessity for such a serious departure from the fundamental principles of open justice and fairness? My Committee subjected to careful scrutiny the evidence that the Government say demonstrates the necessity for making closed material procedures available in civil proceedings. We appreciated the Government’s difficulties in proving their case with reference to ongoing cases. We were anxious to give them a proper opportunity to prove their case and did so, but the Home Secretary refused to allow the special advocates to see the material that had been shown to the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The Government were unable to provide the Committee with a detailed breakdown of the civil damages claims pending against them in which sensitive national security information is centrally relevant to the case.
	The Committee’s report on the Bill states that we remain unpersuaded that the Government have demonstrated by reference to evidence that there exists a significant and growing number of civil cases in which a closed material procedure is essential, in the sense that the issues in the case cannot be determined without a closed material procedure. I am sympathetic to the arguments made by many human rights organisations, including Liberty, Justice and Amnesty International. They argue that, because the Government have not made their case for introducing closed material procedures into civil proceedings, that part of the Bill should be removed altogether. Indeed, I note that a number of eminent lawyers in the other place voted to do just that.
	My Committee’s judgment, however, is that the Bill is likely to pass in some form, and it is therefore better to seek to improve it with amendments that seek to make it compatible with the important traditions of open justice and fairness. I will therefore not vote against the Bill today, but the Government are on notice of the need to show us the evidence that demonstrates the necessity for extending closed material procedures into civil proceedings.
	The amendments made to the Bill by the House of Lords made some of the necessary improvements, but I shall conclude by outlining four areas where the Committee and I believe improvements are required. First, we need provision for full judicial balancing of interests to take place within a closed material procedure. The House of Lords—by an overwhelming majority—amended the Bill to ensure that there is full judicial balancing of
	interests at the gateway stage, when the court decides whether a closed material procedure is appropriate. However, the amendment to ensure that the same judicial balancing takes place within the closed material procedure, when the court is deciding whether material should be closed or open, was defeated in the Lords late at night. Labour backed the amendment recommended by my Committee in the Lords, and I hope it will do so in this House. The amendment is essential to ensure that judges have the discretion they require to ensure that the Bill does not create unfairness.
	Secondly, the House needs to listen to the expert views of the special advocates and act on their recommendation that the Bill must include what has become known as a “gisting” requirement, which has been referred to. My Committee recommended that such a requirement be included in the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010, but the Government resisted, and the High Court last week held that such a requirement is necessary for the legislation to be compatible with human rights. The House should not leave it to the courts to correct the Government’s mistakes, so we should amend the Bill to give effect to the Committee’s recommendation.
	Thirdly, the Bill needs to make provision for regular reporting to Parliament, as has been suggested. The Secretary of State should report regularly for independent review by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and for annual renewal, to ensure a regular opportunity for Parliament to review the operation of the legislation and to debate its continuing necessity.
	Fourthly and finally, the Bill needs to be amended to provide a more proportionate response to the problem of preventing courts ordering the disclosure of national-security sensitive information.
	In conclusion, I look forward to the House, particularly in Committee, living up to its responsibility to ensure that the legislation we pass is compatible with the basic requirements of the rule of law, fairness and open justice.

David Davis: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), whose Committee—the Joint Committee on Human Rights—produced the best guide to the Government’s proposals and their weaknesses, and to the threats they pose to our current civil liberties.
	In recent months, the Prime Minister rightly received plaudits for how he handled the apology for the Bloody Sunday massacre and the Finucane murder. He did so with great openness and sensitivity. Both inquiries exposed unlawful killing, either directly or indirectly, by agents of the state, and subsequent cover-ups. Thankfully, that sort of thing is extraordinarily rare in the UK. One reason why it is rare is that such things are exposed and deterred by an open and transparent system of justice—the whole system of justice, including the criminal judicial system, the inquest system and the civil courts system.
	Measures in the Bill create the power to take parts of that civil judicial system not just out of the public domain —that already happens in some ways—but completely out of the normal judicial testing procedure. Under the Bill, evidence can be presented by the Government that the other side and their defence lawyers cannot see. That evidence cannot be tested, and therefore may be
	wholly wrong and misleading, which undermines the very thing that makes our system work.

George Howarth: What role does the right hon. Gentleman imagine a defence lawyer would have in such proceedings?

David Davis: A defence lawyer has the role of challenging the evidence, but I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman’s point later.
	The Bill is, in the words of Lord David Pannick, a leading barrister—indeed, he is the Government’s leading barrister of choice—“unnecessary, unfair and unbalanced”. He said it is unnecessary because we already have the public interest immunity system.

Malcolm Rifkind: My right hon. Friend has chosen to quote Lord Pannick, but in the debate in the House of Lords on 11 July, he also said:
	“I recognise that there may well be a need in some exceptional cases for a…closed material procedure, but…this should be a last rather than a first resort.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 July 2012; Vol. 738, c. 1176.]

David Davis: Exactly—or not exactly, in the context of this debate. Much depends on how the Government decide to respond to amendments made in the Lords.

Malcolm Rifkind: rose —

David Davis: If my right hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, I have run out of injury time.
	If a case involves sensitive information, the Secretary of State asks the judge’s permission to keep documents away from the court. The judge examines the evidence and makes a decision that balances national security with the interests of justice. Under the PII system, evidence can be shown in an edited form, and witnesses, whether spies or special forces or whoever, can speak from behind screens. Suspects can be given the gist of the case against them, and the court can sit in open session or in camera. All those operations are possible under the PII system, which has served British justice well for decades, not just against the current threat of terrorism, but against the Soviet threat, which in many ways was much more professional, and the previous Irish terrorist threat. The proof of the PII system is that no Government, including this one, can point to a single court judgment that has undermined national security—not one judgment.

Jack Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: I will, but only because it is to the right hon. Gentleman.

Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is right that no one can say that PII has lead to a disclosure of evidence, because PII excludes evidence—that is the whole point of it.

David Davis: I missed the right hon. Gentleman’s last words.

Jack Straw: The whole point of PII is that it excludes evidence. Therefore, by definition, there can be no compromise of national security in PII, but there can be no evidence before a court either.

David Davis: PII balances the demands of national security and justice—that is exactly what it does. I do not want to be distracted for too long, but I discussed this at some length with Lord Pannick, whom my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) mentioned, with a number of lawyers who operate in this system all the time—not just as an aside or even as criminal lawyers, but all the time—and with the special advocates. This is not just the view of some civil liberties extremists, as the Minister without Portfolio tries to imply. It is the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is unpersuaded —the word it used—that the existing law is not up to the task. It is the view of almost all the special advocates, the lawyers who make closed material procedures work and understand the procedure better than anyone else—indeed, I would argue that they are the only people who understand both the strengths and the weaknesses of the procedure they operate. It is the view of Lord Pannick, as I said, and the view of the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, who had a formidable record of prosecution in terrorist cases in his time as DPP.
	The Government, the security agencies and their proxies say the opposite, just as they did—in fact, we had the reference earlier—when the 7/7 inquest was proposed. What did MI5 say? It said that holding the inquest in public would amount to “handing over the keys” to its headquarters. It said that if evidence was not heard in secret then it might have to release information from top secret intelligence files. No such thing happened. Instead, we learned a great deal about what happened on 7/7. We learned about failings in operations, data handling and management—all perfectly proper things for the British public to know, and not a single failure of security or intelligence. As the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) said, Dame Justice Hallett ran the inquest very well indeed, as we expect our security-experienced judges to do. That balance was managed nearly perfectly. There is no doubt that this sort of important information about the scrutiny of the state is far more likely to come out in an open court of law than by any other means. I even include in that the Intelligence and Security Committee, good job though it does; an open court is even more important than that.
	Many of the Government misdemeanours I have just mentioned have been and gone—inquests held and claims settled. However, the problem of Governments using the rhetoric of national security as a shield for politically embarrassing information has not gone away. In recent years, we have seen allegations of Government complicity in torture and extraordinary rendition. We have seen Gaddafi’s political opponents seized and handed back to the Libyan dictator to face imprisonment and torture—the case that was settled last week. I suspect we will be involved in the use of drones, which have killed scores of innocent people, because of intelligence. This issue of exposure of state misdemeanour in the courts, therefore, is still very current indeed.
	It is worth looking at an example of how the state currently uses closed material procedure when it is able. As luck would have it, we have a topical case right
	now—the case of Serdar Mohammed. Two weeks ago, a British court heard allegations that a suspected Taliban terrorist, captured by UK forces, was tortured by Afghan security services. A secret document was presented to the court in redacted form, the way it would have been in a closed material procedure. Indeed, the document was in the Maya Evans evidence case that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio referred to earlier. The court did not allow the redaction of the secret UK eyes only document, so we now have both the redacted and unredacted copies in the public domain. We can, therefore, see what was redacted, supposedly for security reasons.
	Paragraph 20 talks about a visit to this prisoner by British embassy staff and Royal Military Police. It states:
	“The detainee showed the visit party...some of the injuries which he claimed were made as a result of being beaten several times with steel rods to the areas of his legs and feet which he claims left him unable to stand afterwards. Photographs of some of the alleged injuries are also annexed.”
	Where the security interest of the British state is in redacting that, I do not know. It was absolutely material to the case in front of the court on Serdar Mohammed. The information posed no threat to any agents, no threat to any techniques, and no threat to any British national interest and yet that was one of the redactions. The only negative effect of showing it in court, of course, was the possible political embarrassment that we may not have met our duties under international law and under the rules of war in protecting a prisoner who was technically under our command. This is exactly the sort of public interest information that could be concealed if the Bill became law.
	With closed material procedures enshrined in law, the intelligence agencies would inevitably be tempted to protest that any information relating to their activities was “sensitive”. We have seen that before in the Binyam Mohamed case. More cases would be heard in secret, with no defence lawyers, victims, press or public present to challenge or report what transpired. Evidence heard in secret cannot be easily challenged, and we need to address that. Inconsistencies cannot be spotted and witnesses cannot be properly cross-examined. Under these conditions, evidence may not be worth the paper it is written on.
	Let me give the House another example of how this system can fail. A few years ago, there was a control order case, under the previous Government, where the suspect was accused of entering Britain at a specific date and time using a fake passport, which was part of the evidence. Shortly afterwards, exactly the same evidence, including the same fake passport, was used against a different suspect in another, totally unrelated case. They were both supposed to have used the same passport on the same day, which was clearly not possible. It was only by lucky coincidence that the same special advocate, out of approximately 70, was handling both cases. He recognised the evidence and was able to point out that this was false. I do not believe that it was an intentional misleading of the court by the agencies; I think it was simply a mistake. However, it is a matter of public record and the special advocate concerned is now a judge. That demonstrates how easily the CMP can fail miserably in critical issues of justice. That is why Supreme Court
	Justice Lord Kerr, former Government prosecutor in Northern Ireland during the troubles, subsequently Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, said:
	“It would be, at a stroke, the deliberate forfeiture of a fundamental right which has been established for more than three centuries.”
	The Justice and Security Bill is being sold as a fair way to protect our national security and justice. It does neither.

Hazel Blears: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I am not entirely sure that we will see completely eye to eye in our contributions, but I hope that we will have the opportunity to debate the subject further.
	As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I welcome the proposals in Part 1 of the Bill. They will go a long way to ensuring that the scrutiny of our intelligence agencies is more robust and transparent. In turn, that will give the British public a greater degree of reassurance that the intelligence agencies are properly and fully scrutinised. That is important because they spend a great deal of public money—approximately £2 billion—and because they are involved in some of the most controversial and difficult areas of our national life and operations across the globe.
	I commend to the Minister the amendments ably and deftly moved by my colleagues Lord Butler of Brockwell and the Marquess Lothian in the other place, particularly in relation to the issue about not limiting the Committee to dealing entirely with retrospective matters, but giving it some freedom to look at current issues if that is what the Government want us to do. I hope the amendments will be adopted.
	I want to add my thanks to those from the Chair of the Committee and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) to our current secretariat. They are few in number, but the work they do is amazing. I do not think that the Committee would fulfil its role in the way that it does without their insight, intelligence and intellect, and I pay tribute to them.
	If Part 1 of the Bill is relatively uncontentious, the same cannot be said of part 2. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, repeated the phrase that these proposals are a “radical departure” from our normal system of justice. That is also what Lord Pannick said in the other place and was the basis of all the evidence put before the Joint Committee. Yes, it is a radical departure. Under our normal system of justice, evidence is heard in open court and challenged by adversarial cross-examination, and the judge weighs the evidence and comes to a reasoned judgment at the end of the case.

George Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although these proposals are a radical departure, the circumstances in which they would be used are also a radical departure?

Hazel Blears: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since the terrorist threat to the country has increased, particularly since 9/11, and remains a significant threat, clearly other measures have had to be taken.
	That is exactly the point: although everyone is saying that these proposals are a radical departure, actually we have trodden this path before. As the Minister responsible for taking the control order legislation through the House, I know only too well the depth of feeling among Members on both sides of the House—this is hugely controversial stuff about which people have very strong feelings. It is contentious among the legal profession, and there are many different views among judges and practitioners, but, as has been said, none of us wants to go down this path—it is not something that we relish doing—but, if we are to protect national security and to have a fair hearing of these issues, we have no other option.
	Last night, I tried something that the judges will have to do, which was a little balancing act: I drew up a table of arguments for and against the proposals to highlight in my own mind where the balance in the Bill should lie. First, on the “for” side—the reasons I support the proposals for closed procedures—was the need to protect our international relationships and liaison with countries across the globe. Yes, that is about America, but it is not just about America; increasingly, many of the plots that threaten the UK have an international element and much more work now has to be done upstream—in the words of the security agencies—to disrupt terrorist training and plots that might manifest themselves in this country unless we can do work internationally as well as in this country. That means we have to have these relationships. They are fundamental to the success of our fight against terrorism.
	Some people have asked whether the threat that America might not co-operate with us as much as it has in the past is real, or whether it is something that the security agencies are making up to force us down this path. As the Americans would say, “You bet it’s real”. When the Committee visited America last year, we were told in no uncertain terms by law officers, the CIA and a whole host of agencies that the damage done not so much by the information in the Binyam Mohamed case, but by the breaching of the control principle had shaken that relationship—I would not say to its foundations, because it is a very strong relationship, but it had shaken it—and resulted in a lack of information sharing.

David Davis: The right hon. Lady might not be aware, but the greatest release of intelligence information in history prior to WikiLeaks came in the Pentagon papers. In that case, the American Government brought the control principle before their courts, and they were turned down and vast amounts of data provided by foreign countries were released into the public domain—and that was not the last time; it has happened several times since. Indeed, evidence to the Binyam Mohamed trial stated that the US understood the issues about control because the courts in the states were independent.

Hazel Blears: I think the right hon. Gentleman gets the balance wrong in that case. I think of the information that the US has provided us with to protect our security. I think of the bomb plot in April—the second underpants bomb plot—where the liaison between the US and this country was essential to preventing an incident that could have cost many lives. We have to strike a balance, but national security is our first responsibility to the country.

Mark Durkan: My right hon. Friend referred to US concerns based on the Binyam Mohamed case. Does she not, and do they not, recognise that no disclosure of information was ordered by the courts here and that the disclosure actually happened in US proceedings, not here?

Hazel Blears: I think the Americans have a great deal of concern about many legal jurisdictions when it results in information subject to the control principle being disclosed in open court.

Andrew Tyrie: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the American courts do not provide that absolute level of protection and that there is no reciprocation of the control principle in US courts, so it is perfectly possible, through the US court system, that information that we have handed to the Americans could, in principle, find its way into the public domain? That point has been made once or twice already. It is crucial that both countries have a sense of balance and put their courts back at the centre of making that judgment.

Hazel Blears: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, clearly the control principle relates to relationships between difference intelligence services and liaison countries. Also, in America, they have the states secret privilege, under which they can say, “This matter is not justiciable at all, because it covers matters relating to national intelligence”, so in some respects it is a more draconian system than ours. We are seeking to find a balance, rather than having an Executive veto, and I think that that is the right way to go.
	The second issue on my “for” list was about revealing capabilities, techniques and methods. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I am in a privileged position and have had an opportunity to look at the current cases lodged for damages in civil proceedings. I have looked at the grounds from the applicants and the defence grounds from the agencies, and it is startlingly clear that, were the defence to be pursued, it would reveal techniques, methods, capabilities and networks of agents, and that it would be impossible for the security agencies to pursue their defence in those contemporary cases. Some people think that these cases are historical and that once we have dealt with the ones from Guantanamo Bay, which we have, there will not be any more coming down the track, but that is not the case. Many have happened recently, and, as the Minister without Portfolio said, this jurisdiction is now becoming an attractive place to bring a claim, because the agencies are not in a position to defend themselves.
	Thirdly and fundamentally, the system of closed procedures will allow all the evidence to be put before the judge. That is the foundation here. If we have public interest immunity, we exclude information from the judge, which is the opposite of what we are trying to achieve, and I do not believe that partial justice, in which information that could go to the heart of the proceedings is excluded, is proper justice.
	The final point that I weighed in the balance was about safeguarding the reputation of our agencies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East made the point very powerfully that these are people who, in some cases, put their lives on the line for our safety and that of those we represent, and when
	they have to settle cases, as they did last week in the claim by Mr al-Saadi, people will inevitably draw inferences. They will say, “There’s no smoke without fire. There must have been something in it, if the Government are prepared to pay £2 million”, and that puts the agencies in an invidious position. Men and women of integrity and honour who dedicate their lives to the protection of this country are smeared by the implication that they have been complicit in torture or mistreatment. It might have happened in some cases, but I would rather that all the information was before the judge, because at least then the services could get a proper decision, rather than have their integrity smeared, which I think is outrageous.
	My final point is about taxpayers’ money. It is not our main issue, but many millions of pounds has been paid to people, some of whom might not have had legitimate claims had we been able to get them into court. If we are giving them millions of pounds, there is the prospect of some of it being used to fund further extremist or terrorist activity. That is totally unacceptable.
	There are a number of outstanding questions, and I have no doubt that the Minister will explore them in fine detail in Committee. I look forward to the prospect of discussing them with him. I want to make a couple of final points now, however. The decisions to accept discretion and to move from “must” to “may” are welcome. If this is really to be a judge-led process, that is where we need to be. I also want to make a point to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, who is no longer in his place. He talked about the court being able to look at each piece of information; that is exactly what the court will be able to do. The judge will be able to look at each piece of evidence and ask whether it goes to the heart of the issue and whether it should be kept secret or disclosed. If there were a redacted paragraph that had no national security implications, for example, the judge would be able to determine that it could be disclosed. PII would be available, and the matter would not even be before the court, so the right hon. Gentleman’s point really did not support his argument. On the PII issue, I have misgivings about the length of time involved and the cumbersome nature of the process in every case. I want to explore the balancing judgment to get this in the right place.
	This is a necessary Bill. As I have said, this is not a move that any of us relishes making. We are democrats in this country, and we believe in the rule of law, but if we are to protect our national security and get the balance right, it is essential that we support it.

Nicola Blackwood: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). I am not a lawyer, a former Home Office Minister or a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, so I will speak with humility. I would like to start by paying tribute to the members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Members of the other place who have already done much to illuminate and improve the workings of the Bill.
	The Bill clearly sits at the juxtaposition of justice and national security. As a result, it involves less than perfect solutions, in both directions. No one pursuing absolute
	principles of open justice or fairness would reach for the closed material procedure, public interest immunity certificates, confidentiality rings or in camera hearings to try to achieve a measure of justice in the national security context. It is unarguable that extreme caution and extreme conservatism—with a small c—should be our starting point in approaching limits to those fundamentals of the rule of law of which we are so rightly proud here in the UK.
	I have previously made it clear that I had significant reservations about the Bill. I accepted the principle that the closed material procedure might be appropriate in exceptional cases and as a last resort—that was also the position of David Anderson QC, who, unlike the majority of us here today, has been able to review some of the evidence that forms the Government’s case for the Bill—but I was not so happy with the details of the Bill in its original form.
	I will restrict my remarks to part 2, which deals with the secret courts provisions. In particular, I found it difficult to accept the lack of discretion available to judges; the inequality of arms; the failure to ensure that CMP would be triggered as a last resort and only when strictly necessary; and the order-making power in clause 11. A Bill containing such provisions did not give the impression of limiting our traditions of open justice and fairness reluctantly, or of doing only the minimum to achieve the Government’s stated aims of preserving our vital intelligence links while enabling the Government to defend themselves against civil claims. I must be honest and say that I would have struggled to vote for such a Bill.
	The Lords amendments have put a different Bill before us today, however; they have addressed every one of the points that I have just raised. They have strengthened the Government’s attempts to achieve their stated aims. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the amendment that will enable judges to exercise a measure of discretion. Replacing the word “must” with the word “may” might not seem like much to the casual observer, but to the non-state party in court, that will mark the difference between an obligation on the judiciary to grant CMP, on the one hand, and confidence in an independent decision made in the courts and not the Home Office, on the other. Our judiciary has so far shown itself to be trustworthy when it comes to protecting our national security interests, and decisions of the courts must clearly be theirs and not the Government’s, if the judiciary is to command respect here and abroad.
	I was sorry to hear that the Minister without Portfolio was not convinced by arguments to allow judges to take into account whether alternative, existing procedural measures might be more appropriate in the first instance. Many of those measures provide more minimally invasive ways of excising national security material from the mass of evidence in a case and therefore keep more of the proceedings in the public eye. Put more clearly, rather than reaching for the total blackout of the CMP in the first instance, combining existing mechanisms such as PII certificates, confidentiality rings and in camera hearings could well be more effective. That could achieve a more open justice, not compromise too greatly on fairness and still preserve the safety of intelligence for the majority of cases. It is important for us to know that that will be the default position, and that the CMP will not become the lazy or inappropriately risk-averse
	option rather than a necessity due to the nature of the evidence in specific cases or the desire of the applicant to rely on the sensitive information in their argument.
	There will always be hard cases, such as that of al-Rawi, that prove that PII certificates might not be appropriate, perhaps due to the sheer volume of sensitive material involved, but such hard cases do not make good law and they prove nothing more than that there will be exceptional cases in which PII will not work and that this new alternative might be necessary. I think that we can trust the judiciary to work that one out. I also think that that course of action is sensible and the very least that can be done to reassure all parties to the litigation and the public that a decision to invoke CMP was strictly necessary and that all alternative solutions had been ruled out first.
	I am pleased that the Government have also accepted the argument on equality of arms. It is worth remembering David Anderson QC’s evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on this matter. He said:
	“I am a little baffled by this. It is very much part of the Government’s justification for the Green Paper and the Bill that a closed material procedure can achieve fairness for individuals whose claims would otherwise have been struck out.”
	It is illogical to exclude an application for CMP if the Government are arguing that the procedure would achieve fairness in such circumstances. I hope that the Government will continue to put forward that justification.
	So far, I have made the case for the Government retaining amendments that have already been made, and I am grateful to them when they have done so. I would also like to discuss an issue that has affected many special advocates, who have made it clear that CMPs are “inherently unfair”. That is inevitable, given the circumstances, but the situation should be mitigated as much as possible. A major problem that special advocates have identified relates to their inability fully to represent clients when they are unable to disclose sufficient information to elicit effective instructions from the client. This obviously turns on how effectively and consistently the “AF No. 3 gisting obligation” is applied. Lord Carlile, in his evidence to the JCHR, explicitly acknowledged that that obligation should apply to all proceedings as a default. I am not yet convinced that the language in clause 7(l)(d), which states that the court need only “consider” providing a summary, matches that interpretation.
	I hope that the Government will address that matter in Committee. Unless they demonstrate good faith in relation to open justice and state that disclosure will be the default position except in truly exceptional circumstances, it will be difficult to persuade a sceptical public that the measures proposed today are necessary and proportionate. I am afraid that I disagree with the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) about the removal of clause 11. His points on individual courts might be true, but an order-making power that does not define the courts involved should not be included in the Bill. It is appropriate that such extreme measures should be fully debated in the House.
	Any measure that threatens the rule of law in the UK, or that sends a message that we do not uphold the highest standards of openness and fairness in our judicial
	system, is to be abhorred. However, when the choice is between no justice—due to national security material in evidence causing cases to collapse—and a measure of justice achieved by CMP, we have an uneasy choice to make. If we can hedge CMP around with sufficient protections for both parties—by keeping the amendments that will ensure sufficient judicial discretion and equality of arms and allow courts to ensure that CMP in civil courts is limited to truly exceptional cases as a last resort, and by ensuring that the gisting obligation is honoured—then and only then will the gains in fairness just about make up for the losses in openness. If those protections are not put in place, however, we will lose fairness and openness, and it will be extremely difficult to justify these changes.

Jack Straw: Before I come to the merits of the Bill, I would like to draw the House’s attention to the fact that, along with Her Majesty’s Government, I have been a defendant in civil actions brought by two Libyan nationals and their families—Mr al-Saadi, who has already been mentioned, and Mr Belhaj. A settlement was made public last week in respect of Mr al-Saadi’s case without any admission of liability by any of the defendants. In the case of Mr Belhaj, proceedings are still active. In these circumstances, the House will, I am sure, understand how constrained I must be in respect of these matters at the present time. I hope to be able to say much more about these cases at an appropriate stage in the future. I should, however, make it clear that at all times, in all the positions of Secretary of State that I occupied, I was scrupulous in seeking to carry out my duties in accordance with the law.
	On a lighter note, I apologise Mr Deputy Speaker, to you and to the House that I may have to leave if the winding-up speeches go past 6.15 pm, as I have to conduct an open air carol service beyond the House at 7 pm.
	Let me move on to discuss the Bill. As Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary, I was responsible over a period of nine years for all three of the agencies—a distinction, I gather, I share only with the noble Lord Hurd in the other place. During those nine years, I came to have a very high regard indeed for the agencies, for their leadership and for all the staff who work for them. I also recognised that it is through improved methods and means of accountability that the quality and standing of those agencies can be improved and not undermined. I therefore greatly welcome the proposals in part 1 to strengthen the role and status of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and, indeed, to add to the powers of the Intelligence Services Commissioner.
	The more controversial aspects of the Bill—on closed material proceedings—are contained in part 2. The starting-point for everyone in this House has to be that, in principle, justice must be open and has to be seen to be done. This House and our courts have rightly established a high bar for any modification of that principle. Sometimes, however, they have so modified that principle where it collides with other equally important principles. One of those concerns the safety of witnesses in criminal trials. Thus, in the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008, following the Law Lords’ decision in the Davis case, I introduced—and both Houses quickly
	passed—a statutory scheme providing for witnesses who would otherwise be in grave danger, to give their evidence under the protection of anonymity. That evidence is still heard by the defendant and his counsel, as well as by the jury: it is the identity of the witness, not the evidence itself, that is kept confidential.
	There is, then, the situation that this Bill seeks to address, where the clash with the principle of open justice is the greater. That is where in civil actions, not just the identity of the witness, but the evidence they give, is kept confidential from one of the parties and their counsel—typically in circumstances where the action is against the state.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), who I regret is not in his place at the moment, talked about part 2 being a “radical departure” from accepted principles of the common law. The irony is that the first “radical departure” to establish closed material proceedings came as a result of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Chahal case. As the Minister without Portfolio pointed out, closed material proceedings were established in response to those human rights concerns and at the behest of the same human rights lawyers who are now claiming that closed material proceedings represent some fundamental breach of human rights. If I may say so, they do not, and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission process has been found to be completely consistent with the European convention.
	As we know, SIAC’s task is to determine whether a deportation order made against an individual on grounds of national security should be executed. The special advocates see all the evidence, and their duty—formally to the court and not to the client—is to have all the secret evidence tested as forensically as possible before the tribunal, but the deportee cannot know what the evidence is. As a result, there is an especial burden on the tribunal to test this evidence.
	Those who are sceptical about SIAC, or any closed material proceedings, need to address themselves to SIAC’s record. I mentioned in an intervention on the Minister without Portfolio that of 37 substantive cases before SIAC since January 2007, in at least seven, SIAC has found against the Government—and the cases do not go there in the first place unless the evidence is quite strong.
	SIAC could not operate without closed material proceedings at its heart. The question before the House today is whether such proceedings should be extended to civil actions. In the case of al-Rawi, the Supreme Court decided that if CMP were to be extended to civil actions, that must be a matter for Parliament rather than the courts. Its decision followed the approach of the Law Lords in R v. Davis.
	I make no complaint about that. For all the talk about alleged excessive judicial activism, in both cases the Supreme Court and the Law Lords were simply saying “We cannot make the law here in order to extend the law; this is a matter for Parliament.” That seems to me entirely appropriate, and I take issue with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon that it was as big a “radical departure” as he and his Committee had claimed. The truth is that there was no necessity for any radical departure in respect of the accountability of the intelligence agencies until 15 years ago, because before then the agencies were not accountable at all. There was no way in the world in which any of these
	actions would have been entertained. Had they been tried, they would have been struck out by the judge because there was no evidence.
	The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) is looking at me sceptically, but before 1989, the existence of the agencies was not even admitted publicly. The present situation is relatively new. It arises precisely because of the work done by successive Governments in the last 20 years to make the agencies accountable, and not for any other reason.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend really think that the work of an Intelligence and Security Committee all of whose members have been appointed by the Prime Minister amounts to open and democratic parliamentary scrutiny?

Jack Straw: That has been the charge against the ISC in the past, and I am glad that things are going to change. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that I have given evidence to the ISC on a number of occasions, and it is no patsy Committee. It is composed of senior parliamentarians from both Houses, and they do a proper and effective job. The challenge for my hon. Friend is to explain how, given the nature of its subject matter, that job could conceivably be done by means of open hearings. It is not possible. The choice is between an ISC that operates in the way that the Bill proposes, and the absence of any kind of parliamentary scrutiny. I know which I choose.
	Let me now deal with the arguments that have been advanced against closed material proceedings. The most frequently used argument is that we should resort to public interest immunity certificates. I accept that, if possible, “gisting” should be used or the court should sit in camera, but in most cases those options are not possible. Public interest immunity certificates are used fairly often, but they work effectively only when the evidence that they seek to exclude is relatively peripheral to the proceedings. If they are used in relation to evidence that is central to the case, they make it impossible for a trial of the action to take place at all. They do not protect evidence and make it safely usable in court; they exclude it altogether.

Julian Lewis: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the observation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis)—I am sorry that he is no longer in the Chamber—that PII certificates have not imperilled national security was obviously correct but utterly banal? As long as we are willing to drop all these cases and pay millions of pounds, national security will not be affected, but the Exchequer will be.

Jack Straw: Yes, and using PII certificates in respect of evidence that is central to a case is profoundly unjust to both sets of parties.
	Dinah Rose is a leading critic of the proposals in the Bill. I have looked carefully at her response to the consultation document, which was published earlier this year.
	She stated,
	“PII is not perfect—it does result in some cases being tried without all evidence being available.”
	She also stated that in rare cases:
	“PII may also result…in a situation in which a party is ordered to disclose a document which it is not prepared to disclose, leaving it no alternative but to settle the claim.”
	She is being disingenuous, because in these national security cases we are talking about not a document—her word—but bundles of documents that are central to the adjudication of the action.
	I, like the Minister, dealt with lots of PII cases and had to work through them very carefully. If there were thousands of documents, as there would be in these cases, a Minister would have to take a month or so off to operate that and, at the end, if the court accepted the PII application, there would be evidence that could not be used in the case.
	Ms Rose concludes her summary by referring to the need for “potential misconduct” by the agencies to
	“see the light of day”.
	I absolutely agree with her sentiment. The problem is that in the absence of CMPs, there is no way of determining misconduct by members of the agencies in a civil action. The most that can happen is a settlement out of court with a payment into court but no admission of liability. That is profoundly unjust to both sides. It is unjust to the complainant, who might well have right on their side but who is denied the means to have the court find in their favour, and equally unjust to the agencies and their staff, who might also have right on their side but no means of making their defence.
	In the other place, various amendments were made that were designed to strengthen the role of the courts in determining whether and, if so, how CMPs should be used. They will be examined upstairs and I look forward to the result of the Committee. I am in no doubt about the necessity of the Bill and if the sceptics want to make the agencies more accountable, they should have this Bill—

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

Simon Hughes: It is pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the former Home Secretary, and the House will give due weight to his considered contribution. This Bill is clearly important. The world outside might not have realised that it is in three parts: the third is the ancillary part and is very small, the first appears almost to have consensus on both sides of the House, and the second is clearly still controversial.
	Let me first say a word about part 1. Ever since I have been in this place, I have felt that it was right that the responsibility for intelligence and security matters should transfer from the Prime Minister to Parliament. It has been a gradual, careful and considered process, but it is right that we have now done that as all three major parties made a commitment that it should happen. I pay tribute to the current Committee and its predecessors, but it is clearly right that people elected by the people should hold our security and intelligence services to account. With some small further changes that colleagues have debated, we will be on the right track and I anticipate that the newly reconstituted Committee will soon be doing a very important job. I pay tribute to all colleagues who are members of the Committee.
	That leaves part 2, which is about the hugely important issue of how we deal with civil cases—I repeat, civil cases—in which there are intelligence issues that cannot easily be shared with the watching world. I say civil cases, but there is one question that was not entirely answered by my very good and noble Friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats and the Government in the House of Lords, when he was asked about the application of habeas corpus, which is not necessarily a civil case in the full sense. He was not entirely clear whether closed material proceedings could apply in a habeas corpus application, and that will need to be specifically addressed as we have to know exactly where we stand as we deal with the Bill.
	When the first proposals were published in the Green Paper, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I were extremely nervous about them. We were concerned that they gave far too much power to the state and far too little power to the courts, and that they crossed the line between the open courts we have always accepted as the right principle and courts with a restricted process. The former Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, the Minister without Portfolio, fairly said that the Government wanted to consult and they did, and they have listened to the responses to the Green Paper. There is an argument that there could have been a White Paper, but that is not a central argument for today. It is particularly helpful that not only at the beginning, but by the time the Bill came to the Lords, some changes had already been made. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and colleagues had argued for these changes and set out what, for us, were the bottom lines. In April that was made clear. One of them was that we should restrict the scope of the Bill to national security cases only: done. The second was that we should remove inquests: done, although I hear what the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said. There is an inquest question and I do not want to be dismissive of that. The third was ensuring that closed material proceedings were triggered by an application to a judge, not by a decision by Ministers.
	Those steps represented good progress. The Bill then went to the Lords, where it was the subject of long deliberation. It was also examined by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) who served on the Committee for almost its entire work on the Bill. I declare an interest: I joined the Committee at the very end of its proceedings on the Bill. Effectively the work had been done. There was unanimity on the Committee as to the changes that should be made.
	I welcome the fact that the recommendations made by the Joint Committee have almost entirely been picked up by the House of Lords on Report and supported by a majority in the Lords—in many cases, large majorities—against the Government. They have made the Bill a better Bill, with many of the safeguards that we want. I hope the Minister without Portfolio and his colleagues in the Home Office will accept the principle of all the amendments that have come to us from the Lords. The Joint Committee wants that to happen and I would urge that, as would my party colleagues.
	In between those two things we debated the Bill at our Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton, and it got a resounding thumbs-down from my colleagues as going far too far across the line to closed courts from
	open courts. I understand that, and I am sensitive to it as I make my remaining comments this afternoon.

John Hemming: With reference to our party conference, there are those who, like me, would perhaps see closed material proceedings limited to the quantum and the consideration of the quantum rather than the substantive issue. Perhaps that would be an alternative that would attract more support from the party.

Simon Hughes: That is a point of view, but I am not sure. I have not discussed it with my hon. Friend. The point of view of our colleagues was that we have to be very careful when we move away from open justice. We have to accept the evidence of those who say it is not necessary. The Joint Committee heard from the special advocates that it was not necessary. They did not support the proposal and we should give that due weight.
	The central issue is what the procedure will be in order to protect the security interests on the one hand, but make sure that we deliver a fair outcome to a reasonable case on the other. The existing system, the public interest immunity system, means that Ministers declare documents secret and therefore they cannot be used. It is a very simple system, although it can be time consuming. I accept the argument that that often means that a case cannot be carried through to a conclusion, so I am not here to defend the idea that the PII system is the solution to all our difficulties.
	Happily, the Bill is now drafted in such a way that consideration has to be given to that option first, and to whether, if certain documents are withheld, the trial can none the less proceed fairly. But if that is not the answer entirely, we have to consider whether there is something else. I want to flag up the changes that have been made and the ones that I think might get us nearer to what my party colleagues would like to see, as would many people who have written to us.
	First, it is right that we should stick to the idea that the discretion is with the judge, not with Ministers of the state as an alternative. That is why the change referred to by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), that the judge “may” do things, rather than “must” do things, is the right change—small word but big implication in the context of clause 6. We have added the requirement to look at alternatives, such as the PII alternative. We have also added the requirement—a good one—that all parties to the proceedings can apply for closed material proceedings, or that could happen at the judge’s instigation, which is a good thing. We have also dealt with the inquests issue.
	However, we have not dealt with the fundamentally important issue of how a defendant can see the evidence against them, and that is what gave the Joint Committee on Human Rights its biggest difficulty. The Committee made it absolutely clear in its report’s conclusions that, because we had not had the information that justified the case and had heard from the special advocates that they were not persuaded, even though the Government’s official reviewer said he was persuaded, it was not persuaded either. That is set out in paragraphs 44 to 46. There was uncertainly about how many cases we were talking about. Paragraph 42 states:
	“In the light of the lack of clarity about whether the number of pending claims is 27, 15, 6 or 3, and in the light of the Independent
	Reviewer’s evidence we wrote to the Minister in charge of the Bill on 23 October to ask how many civil damages claims were currently pending”.
	Just after the Committee wrote the report, the Advocate-General for Scotland, my noble Friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, replied to that:
	“I can confirm that as of 31 October 2012, there are 20 such live civil damages claims (including those stayed and at pre-action stage). There are also a number of other live cases, including judicial review challenges.”
	He went on to elaborate the detail of that figure. I think we have to accept that that is roughly the number of cases we are talking about, but some of them are very significant cases and cannot be dismissed.
	We must therefore take seriously the challenge that the Government have brought us. My honest view is that we have to allow the defence better access to the information, either through special advocates or by another means. It is on the new word that has only recently come into our language—“gisting”, which means allowing the defence to see not every iota of evidence, but the gist of it—that we need to do the most work in Committee. I think that there must be a mandatory requirement that the information be given in summary to the defence and that the defence—they can be specially cleared defendant advocates or representatives—can see the evidence, respond and take instructions on it. If we are going to say that we will allow the courts to go into closed session, it seems to me that we need the security of knowing that the defendant will have the right to know the case against them and the right to challenge. I hope that the Committee will do some detailed work on that over the coming weeks.
	I agree that we need to deal with the Norwich Pharmacal situation, because at the moment we are precluded from using intelligence from abroad because of the court’s overriding power to have that put into the public domain. That has to be dealt with, because it is clearly unsatisfactory. I agree that we need to have a reporting and reviewing process and allow the media to make representations, as recommended by the Joint Committee.
	I have two final points. First, we must ensure the judicial balance of national security against the public interest takes place in the second stage of the closed material proceedings process, not just at the gateway. Secondly, we have to consider whether we can just sign off this legislation forever or whether we have to come back to it in a certain number of years. This is very unusual territory for us. Civil liberties are at risk. We have made progress, but we are not there yet.

Elfyn Llwyd: It is interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). He said that there was a lack of evidence to support the need for change, which was reminiscent of where the proposal for 90-day pre-charge detention fell down. I believe that part 2 of the Bill threatens to undermine the principle of natural justice that demands that parties to an action should be given access to the case they confront. The Bill is deeply contentious, but some vital amendments have been made by the other place and I think that they must be upheld as a bare minimum, although I am sure that I am not alone in wishing that certain elements of the Bill be removed entirely. On my reading, even as amended
	the Bill could result in members of the public losing their cases against the state without ever having been told why, in the Government’s being allowed to hide evidence of wrongdoing, and in officials being given the power to exclude the other party from court proceedings. As Reprieve points out, that effectively means that they could place themselves beyond challenge and hence above the law.
	Last week, we heard about the Finucane case. We were all heartily disgusted at what went on—the collusion between the police service and the security services. God forbid, but if such a thing happened again, I believe that the Bill would make it easier for the state to prevent a family from suing in such circumstances. Have we thought about that?
	Part 2 also sets out the Government’s intention to remove the courts’ power to order someone who has been involved in wrongdoing to disclose information—the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, which needs to be considered in Committee.
	I shall restrict my remarks to the proposed extension of closed material procedure—known as “secret courts” in outside parlance—to all civil proceedings in clauses 6 to 13. Responding to those provisions, the president of the Law Society and the chairman of the Bar wrote to the Minister without Portfolio saying:
	“CMPs…undermine the principle that public justice should be dispensed in public and will weaken fair trial guarantees and the principle of equality of arms. These are both essential elements of the rule of law.”
	I might also add, as others have, that they undermine the principle that justice must be seen to be done.
	We have heard what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said. It has been vocal in its criticism of the legislation and has drawn attention to the
	“troubling lack of evidence of any actual cases demonstrating the problem which the”
	Government “asserts to exist.” At no point have the Government produced any known case that could not be tried under the current public interest immunity system, which I have seen operate over many years as a legal practitioner myself.
	The special advocates memorandum says
	“CMPs are inherently unfair and contrary to the common law tradition...the Government would have to show the most compelling reasons to justify their introduction...no such reasons have been advanced; and...in our view, none exists.”
	It speaks volumes that the special advocates memorandum was so scathing about what the legislation purports to do; special advocates, of course, are better qualified to comment than anyone else. Among their concerns was the fact that the Bill as originally drafted required a judge to allow the Government’s application for a CMP if there was any material at all that could damage national security, even if the judge considered that the case could be fairly tried under the existing PII. The memorandum also makes the point that the decision on whether to trigger a CMP should lie with a judge and not the Secretary of State—an amendment to that effect has been carried and is most welcome; I hope that it will remain in the Bill.
	Furthermore, under clause 6 as it originally stood, only the Government would have been able to apply for a CMP and not both parties. That is objectionable. The amendment on that is also welcome and I hope that it will be retained, although I am sure that the circumstances in which a plaintiff or claimant would apply would be limited.
	I wish to refer to comments made by Lord Hodgson on Report in the other place. He said:
	“I would like to see enshrined in the Bill a set of steps-hurdles…that the Government of the day will have to clear before they can resort to a CMP. The first is a requirement to go through the public interest immunity procedure, from which the judge can reach a balanced conclusion on whether the interests of national security require a closed court.”
	In the same debate, Lord Pannick, a pre-eminent Queen’s Counsel, is recorded as arguing that
	“a judge in an individual case should have a discretion, not a duty, to order a CMP.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1812-14.]
	I urge the Government to take heed of those arguments and to uphold the amendments carried in the other place.
	Perhaps the most disturbing provision of all is in clause 7(1)(d), which provides that, if a CMP is triggered, a court is not required to give the excluded party a summary of the closed material. Rather, the Bill as drafted requires only that the court should “consider requiring” that such a summary be given. Clause 7(1)(e) provides that the court must ensure that where a summary is given it
	“does not contain material the disclosure of which would be”
	against
	“the interests of national security.”

Robert Buckland: I am listening very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Is not the problem with his argument on clause 7 that there will be cases, if only perhaps a very few, where gisting will not be possible without revealing the essence of what needs to be secret? Therefore, is it not essential to retain some discretion for the court to “consider”, and does that not give more power to the judges?

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman has obviously thought about this, and he may well be right, but at the moment we are all looking into a rather dark room as we do not know what we are actually facing. What he says is quite logical, and I accept it, but I remain concerned.

Steven Baker: I am tempted on the whole to agree with the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, but I draw his attention to clause 7(3), which, if I understand it correctly, requires that the court would direct that the party would not be able to rely on such points unless they provided a summary. I am therefore not sure that his argument stands.

Elfyn Llwyd: I believe that it does.

Michael Crockart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Elfyn Llwyd: I would like to make some progress.
	I have no time to deal with that at this stage. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) may be right; I do not know. I would like to discuss it with him on another occasion, perhaps in Committee.
	“If the special advocate thinks there is an error of law in the closed judgment, he gets permission to say, to pass the message out to the other team to say ‘I think that you should be appealing, I can’t tell you why’...So there is a sort of open appeal. ‘We think there is something wrong but we don’t know what it is.’ And then the court goes into closed session, so it is antithetical to every”
	principle
	“of due process and open justice.”
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights has urged the Government to ensure that if CMPs are to be extended, there must be a
	“statutory requirement in all cases to provide the excluded party with a gist of the closed material that is sufficient to enable him to give effective instructions to his Special Advocate.”
	That is entirely reasonable, while taking on board what the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) says about avoiding breaches of national security, and so on. The Constitution Committee said in its report on the Bill published in June this year:
	“In our view, the court should be required, for example, to consider whether the material could be disclosed to parties’ legal representatives in confidence and whether the material could be disclosed in redacted form.”
	A related point that must be raised is the knock-on effect that clause 7 may have on appeals in civil cases, which is something that we really need to think through.
	The Law Society has pointed out that the extension of CMPs will have wider implications for civil litigation and the professional ethics of solicitors. Solicitors will be impaired in advising their clients on the merits of a case and the prospects of success if they are unable to see the evidence brought by the other party. They will also be unable to advise on any prospect of an appeal, so undermining the client’s right to legal assistance in the determination of their civil rights and the fair trial guarantees under article 6 of the European convention on human rights.
	The provisions contained in part 2 of this Bill will mark a departure—I am not saying that it will be radical, but it will be a departure—from the principles of open justice, and it will possibly undermine confidence in our justice system. I sincerely hope that this House will follow the example of the other place in seeking to amend what appears to be an unbalanced Bill. Discretion as to whether a CMP should be used must ultimately lie, of course, with a judge and not the Secretary of State. Although courts should be required to balance the interests of national security against those of fairness, either party in proceedings should be able to apply for a CMP and, perhaps most importantly of all, there should be a statutory requirement in all cases to provide the excluded party with a summary of the material to enable him or her to give cogent instructions to the special advocate representing his or her interests in court.

Steven Baker: I am grateful that this Bill began its journey in the other place, so that people, such as myself, who are not learned could have the benefit of the thoughts of some of our most senior lawyers. I took two things in particular from their deliberations on Report: first, that many of our great legal minds support the Bill, and secondly, that they support it with their suggested amendments.
	Lord Pannick has been quoted and counter-quoted, but, for the benefit for those of us who are not learned, he said that
	“the proposals constitute a radical departure from the cornerstone of our legal system: the right of a party to know, and to challenge, his opponent’s case” ,
	and:
	“The Government's proposals in themselves constitute a significant reputational risk to our system of justice.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1817-18.]
	I was particularly struck that Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, who was the first President of the Supreme Court, supported the Bill.
	When I consider the balance of liberty, justice and security, I am always inclined to go for liberty and justice, but it would be difficult for me to oppose the Bill as presented. I hope the Government will look extremely sympathetically at the amendments that have been made.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio said specifically that he did not expect any serious discussion about the principle behind the Bill. I was conscious of that when the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) seemed to confess, if I understood him correctly, that his Committee thought it would be futile to stop the Bill, so it sought to make the best of it.
	There seems to be enormous momentum behind the Bill, but no particular enthusiasm to carry it through. Why is there this sense of futility about what is a cornerstone of our judicial system? My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) mentioned some of the instances that show that the state is not always to be trusted, so it is important that we ask ourselves why the particular set of circumstances under discussion should drive us forward.
	There are two issues to consider. First, the highest principle of government today seems to be expediency rather than ultimate values. Secondly, security is the highest aim. We have come a very long way indeed since the time when a British Prime Minister might have said that necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty—I expect that colleagues will know the rest of that. Indeed, in the face of a Bill such as this and the lukewarm support it has received, those of us who think that liberty and justice are our best form of security have very little to add.
	Finally—I will finish early—we should not be surprised if those outside the House who share my view that liberty and justice matter so much are extremely concerned. If we put this measure in the context of the draft Communications Data Bill, the Government’s plans to reduce access to judicial review and, indeed, measures for general anti-avoidance rules for taxation, we see that there is a significant rebalancing of power towards the state—and towards the administrative state at that. It is a disturbing path, but we seem unable to escape it.
	I hope that the Government will consider the amendments extremely carefully and that we will end up with a Bill in which we can take at least some pride.

George Howarth: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), who set out neatly and succinctly the competing principles that we are dealing with, particularly with regard to clause 2.
	I speak as someone who has had the privilege of sitting on the Intelligence and Security Committee since 2005. Without trying to amplify my own influence, that nevertheless gives me a certain insight into the matters under discussion. I will say a brief word about part 1 and then rather more about part 2.
	As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I welcome part 1 pretty much without reservation. Two issues have still not been fully addressed, but I think they can be resolved in Committee. The first relates to the oversight of operations, particularly when they are ongoing. We have had oversight of ongoing operations on occasion, and that ability, with the co-operation of the agencies, has been quite important. That issue has not been fully resolved in the Bill. I hope that it will be resolved through further amendments or the proposed memorandum of understanding, but we are not quite there yet.

Paul Goggins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very important that the Bill does not prevent the Intelligence and Security Committee from undertaking the tasks and inquiries that it currently carries out?

George Howarth: My right hon. Friend’s assertion is right. I do not think it is anybody’s intention that that should happen, but we have concerns that the current wording might lead to that inadvertently.
	The second issue, which has been referred to by several hon. Members and initially by the Chairman of the ISC, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), relates to the resources that it will take for the Committee to do the job that is envisaged in the Bill. I do not want to labour the point, but we are being asked to do a great deal more. I think that it is right to extend what we, as the representatives of this House in such matters, can do, but it will take more resources. As others have said, the secretariat of the Committee is working exceptionally long hours, often without any additional remuneration. People cannot be expected to do that indefinitely, especially when the amount of work that they have to do is increasing. I hope that the staffing issue can be put to bed before the Bill gets much further.

Julian Lewis: In support of what the right hon. Gentleman, who is also my friend, has just said, the House should bear it in mind that it is not just a quantitative increase in resources that is required. If that increase is forthcoming, there will be a qualitative change because, as the Chairman of the ISC pointed out, the new people will act like investigators, going into the agencies and thus giving a realistic prospect of seriously close scrutiny.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is correct and I am glad that he has added to what I have said.
	I will address my remarks on part 2 to closed material proceedings. Usually, if I find myself in agreement with the Minister without Portfolio and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) on these matters, it means that I am in the wrong and I change my position. They tend to be far more liberal than me on these matters.

Jack Straw: Not difficult.

George Howarth: Indeed. However, I am reassured by the unholy alliance that has been formed between my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). That has made me feel a little more secure about the extent to which I agree with those other Members. I rather think that I have brought on an intervention with that remark.

Jeremy Corbyn: An intervention has indeed been brought on. Will my right hon. Friend concede that during all the time we have been in Parliament, we have always disagreed on anti-terrorism laws? I continue with my position, because I believe in the power of the courts rather than in secrecy.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In fact, we have almost never agreed on anything, and as far as I am concerned, long may that continue.
	I shall try to make it clear where I stand and what I think happened as the Bill progressed through the other place. I start with a proposition that almost everybody would agree with—perhaps everybody other than my hon. Friend. It is that the state has to be able to hold secrets. That is not a desirable state of affairs, but the reality of relationships around the world and the problems that we face even within our own country are such that the state sometimes has information that should remain uniquely its property.
	If that is the case, the question arises of what should happen in court proceedings. Closed material proceedings relate to civil cases. I do not know whether anybody other than me, sad as I am, has read the history of the agencies involved, but this is not a new phenomenon. As far back as world war one, some cases simply did not go to court because the agencies concerned did not want their networks, individual agents and practices exposed in a court of law. That is not new. What is new is that we now have cases exported from abroad, as it were, and heard in our courts for civil reasons.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden came to the debate, said a few words and went—he does not seem to have listened to anybody else’s argument, but that is a matter for him. He made two fundamental mistakes, and I will deal with them in turn. First, he gave an example of what must have been a Special Immigration Appeals Commission case in which a special advocate had been used and the case had been overturned as a result of his being privy to certain information. The right hon. Gentleman prayed that in aid as an argument against special advocates, but as far as I could tell it was an argument in exactly the opposite direction. His point was flawed in that respect.
	Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to misunderstand the control principle. It means that when agencies representing two nations share information, the originator of that information has control over what happens to it when it is shared. He cited the Binyam Mohamed case and was right that some of the evidence that emerged in a British civil court had previously been heard in a court of the United States’ jurisdiction. However, that does not alter the principle. The fact that that information could have been found by other means does not mean that the originator of the intelligence does not still own it. The problem was a breach of principle rather than the actual information that came out in the British court.
	I echo what several Members have already said: I and many others have reason to know that there have been cases in which lives in this country have been saved because of shared information. To be blunt, if we cannot continue to share information with our counterparts, particularly in America, but not exclusively, lives will be lost. That is the tough, blunt reality of the choice that we have to make. I have no doubt that the balance of the argument lies with a system that many people say, from pure legal principles, is imperfect, but it is the best system that anyone has been able come up with to deal with the problem. I have no difficulty in supporting part 2, and I have no difficulty in supporting Second Reading if there is a Division.
	Finally, we have to make a choice on closed material proceedings—the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) made a point about that in an intervention. We also have to make a choice about whether it is better not to defend civil cases because we know from the arguments that PII will not resolve the issue; it just means that nothing will be heard. Do we not defend those civil actions, many of which are probably founded on dubious grounds, and carry on paying out millions of pounds in compensation, even in cases where we know that the person concerned had bad intent to this country and its citizens? I think I know what my constituents think about that issue. I know where I stand: the answer is no, we should not carry on spending that money for that purpose.

Andrew Tyrie: It has been an interesting debate, full of thoughtful interventions, and I have learned quite a bit.
	I should like to make three initial points. First, I strongly support the work of the security services, which is essential for our safety. My concerns about the Bill need to be seen in that context. Secondly, I shall refer to the origins of the Bill, and thirdly, I shall deal with what might be at stake, even though we shall discuss it only to some extent this afternoon.
	The Bill came about partly as a consequence of the recent exposure of Britain’s involvement in a programme of extraordinary rendition. Bringing all that into the public domain is a matter of deep concern to the Americans, particularly their security agencies. They are worried that our court proceedings could lead to the exposure of intelligence information handed to them by us. The Bill is a consequence, as we have just heard, of the cost and embarrassment of settling a number of civil actions brought by people who have alleged maltreatment. To deal
	with the first problem, the proposal is to close down the so-called Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction and, to deal with the second problem, the Government have decided to replace public interest immunity certificates with closed material procedures in most national security cases. I shall come on to the case for those proposals in a moment.
	I should like to discuss briefly what is at stake in a broader perspective. All these issues may appear to be abstruse and technical, but they are about the kind of society that we want to live in. It is worth saying a little more about the trigger for the Bill—the issue of extraordinary rendition. We now know that Britain facilitated extraordinary rendition—we do not know its extent—and the Bill may make it more difficult to find out the degree of Britain’s complicity. Senior British public officials have facilitated the kidnapping of people and their transfer to places where our Government knew they might be maltreated or tortured. Last week, Britain paid £2.2 million in compensation to someone who was apparently rendered—and tortured—along with his family, to the Gaddafi regime by British intelligence in 2004. Britain also facilitated the rendition of Binyam Mohamed to Morocco, and apparently he, too, was horrifically tortured. There are other cases, possibly many more: we do not know.
	If we do not get to the bottom of our complicity in such disgusting practices, we surrender the moral high ground. We must be wary about extending secret court proceedings for the same reason. Secret courts are usually held to be the tools of dictators, not of democracies, and their prevalence is often a test of whether a society can be called “free”. I am deeply saddened that my country has become involved in kidnap and torture, and I do not want it to be accused—rightly or wrongly—of covering up such things. That, however, is exactly what Britain’s detractors abroad might claim—fairly or unfairly—about this Bill.

Julian Lewis: I appreciate the serious point about getting to the bottom of a given rendition. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are left with only PII, pay-offs will tend to be given and we will not get to the bottom of cases? However, if a pay-off is made when closed material procedure could have been used, one can deduce that something was amiss because although the Government could have used a more specific route, they chose not to do so.

Andrew Tyrie: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The judge now has discretion on CMPs—at least, I hope that is where we will end up as a result of efforts in the other place—so we could arrive at a position where we have more justice and not less, which is the underlying principle we are discussing. With respect to Norwich Pharmacal, the case is unarguable. We would know less about rendition had the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction been closed down, because it was used to elicit information about the extent of Britain’s involvement.
	The Government have argued that CMPs could deliver more justice because they will be able to introduce evidence that they cannot introduce at the moment for fear it will damage national security. How true is that? I do not know—very few Members present in the Chamber do. The special advocates, security-vetted lawyers who are responsible for making CMPs work, are the small
	group of people with access to the information required to know the answer. They have been unequivocal—the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) quoted them a moment ago. They say that CMPs are not
	“capable of delivering procedural fairness”
	and that their introduction
	“could only be justified by the most compelling reasons and, in our view, none exists.”
	It is worth reading the report by the special advocates in full as it is pretty blistering.
	I am grateful to the Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), for returning to the Chamber, as he also said that PII was deeply flawed. It is certainly not perfect but, again, the special advocates have expressed a view and said that
	“there is as yet no example of a civil claim involving national security that has proved untriable using PII and the flexible use of ancillary procedures (such as confidentiality rings and “in private” hearings from which the public, but not the parties, are excluded).”

Stephen Phillips: That statement may be accurate in so far as it goes, but one case—the Carnduff case—was stayed because it could not be properly tried, albeit that it was not directly in the national security arena. The Supreme Court has said that the principle exists, in which case there will be cases where there is no trial at all unless we use CMPs. Surely my hon. Friend will agree that it is better to go down that route than to have the possibility of no trial for very serious cases.

Andrew Tyrie: I agree that a CMP could be of use in some cases. My point is that the special advocates, who are well placed to judge, have looked at the proposals and said that, so far, they have seen no cases in which PII could not do the job.
	A cynic would argue that the special advocates have an interest in arguing for more legal work and more CMPs, but it is significant that they have spoken in the opposite direction—against the extension of CMPs. Their lordships shared the concerns of the special advocates, and by majorities or more than 100, shredded that part of the Bill.
	The Lords amendments included two crucial safeguards that I consider to be essential. The first, which we have discussed, is that they gave the judge rather than the Minister discretion on whether to hold a CMP. The original Bill clearly gave the lion’s share of that discretion to the Minister, and it is not true, as the Minister said a moment ago, that he gave up that position “months ago”. If he gave it up “months ago”, why on earth did their lordships debate replacing the word “must” with the word “may” only a fortnight ago?
	The second crucial Lords amendment was a measure—clause 6(6)—to ensure that a judge should be able to exhaust PII in his search for justice before considering CMPs. Unfortunately, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister did not say that he would accept it. On the contrary, he used a number of phrases to suggest that he would do no more than consider it, and that he had not yet finished his consideration. I regret that and the fact that we are discussing the Bill so quickly. It needs
	further consideration and I agree with him on that. The debate should have taken place in January. That it is being rushed through just before Christmas adds to my concerns.
	A third safeguard would be valuable. A review should be held after a period to see whether CMPs have led to more rather than less justice. To ensure that the review happens properly, it should be accompanied by a sunset clause—in perhaps seven, eight or 10 years. That proposal was a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Chairman of which is not in the Chamber at the moment. I would like it included in the Bill.
	Having said that, my concluding thought is this: we should remain deeply sceptical of the utility of holding a hearing in which one party is shut out of the case. This is what the former Director of Public Prosecutions has to say on that—I shall quote it in full, because it is so forceful. He said:
	“I have spent many years in criminal courts watching evidence that at first sight seemed persuasive, truthful and accurate disintegrating under cross-examination conducted upon the instructions of one of the parties…That is the risk that we are facing, that we are introducing into civil justice—in the most sensitive and controversial cases, where deeply serious allegations are made against the Government and the security services—a process that expels the claimant and gives him a form of justice that is not better than nothing. It is worse than nothing because it may be justice that is based on entirely misleading evidence.”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1989-1900.]
	I accept that, in some very restricted circumstances, one can conceive of more justice being achieved with a CMP than without one, but I am clear in my mind that that must come only after all other existing routes to try to obtain justice, including PII, have been exhausted. The Minister has not accepted clause 6(6) as amended by the other place. For that reason, above all, I cannot accept the Bill.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). I want to put on record my thanks to, and admiration for, him for forming the all-party group on extraordinary rendition and his work on exposing the awfulness of extraordinary rendition and how many Governments, either willingly or unwillingly, were deceived into allowing it to take place through their jurisdictions. The House owes him a debt of gratitude for that.
	The hon. Gentleman is also right about the speed with which we are considering the Bill. I suspect we will return to major human rights issues in the near future. The Commission on a Bill of Rights has just published its report, which makes excellent reading. I urge all parliamentarians who see their role as protecting civil liberties in our society to read the authoritative essay in the report by Baroness Helena Kennedy and Phillipe Sands QC. They make the point of building on the past rather than destroying the march towards an open society in which we have genuinely independent judicial systems.
	I want the House to consider the Bill—particularly in Committee when we come to reform it—in the context of the power of the secret state: the very large power held by the security services in our society and how, in every western state, they have grown enormously since 2001 and the declaration of the war on terror.
	Guantanamo Bay is a product of that thinking. It is a most evil institution that has treated people abominably, denied them any right to justice or proper access to judicial process, and tortured them and kept them there for many years. Our country took part in the extraordinary rendition of people from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay. Indeed, rendition even took place through Diego Garcia, which is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, by the use of the US base there.
	Political opportunism led us from being an enemy of Colonel Gaddafi to being a friend of Colonel Gaddafi then an arms supplier to Colonel Gaddafi. We were apparently so involved in his operations that our security services were prepared to hijack one of his enemies from another jurisdiction and take him back to Libya, where he was subsequently tortured by Gaddafi’s henchmen. That information was uncovered only in the chaos and rubble of Tripoli. So far £2.2 million has been paid in compensation, which I assume avoids the embarrassment of an open court case with Sami al-Saadi. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) pointed out, the Belhaj case is still pending and cannot be discussed. There is a lesson here about our easy acceptance of the power of the secret state and the security services, which has led us to this appalling situation where that amount of money has to be paid because of clear transgressions of the rights and justice of an individual who was standing up for the society he believed in—something that we claim to want all around the world.
	The Bill deals with two or three issues that I want to cover briefly in the short time available, the first of which is parliamentary oversight. When I first came into the House in 1983, there was no parliamentary oversight of security services at all. It was an article of faith in the Labour party at that time—my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and I may agree on this particular point—that there should have been some parliamentary oversight of the security services. There we have it—agreement on this occasion.

George Howarth: I would not want my hon. Friend to take this too far, though.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am very cautious about claiming agreement and support at any stage, but I thank my right hon. Friend for that. I am sure that he would acknowledge that, despite the demand for parliamentary oversight and the subsequent considerable reforms of the House of Commons—achieved mainly by the former hon. Member for Cannock Chase Tony Wright—where we now have elected Select Committees and a much greater sense of openness in our business, the Intelligence and Security Committee seems to have avoided the reform process altogether. It is the only Select Committee where its members are appointed by the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, and where the Chair is elected by the Committee rather than by a vote by party caucuses of the whole House. Its reports are published, yes, but one wonders how much is told to our colleagues on the Committee. I have no great ambitions or expectations of being appointed to it, but in an elected process all kinds of things could happen. Patronage is one of the great traditions of the British Parliament. It creates the illusion that the security services are accountable. I would have hoped that the Committee would have given the security services an
	extremely hard time over Sami al-Saadi, in whose case the British security services were clearly involved, over Guantanamo Bay, over Diego Garcia and over many other issues.
	The second point I want to raise concerns the process that has led us to this pass of having a degree of secrecy in our courts. I opposed the establishment of the Special Immigration Appeals courts because they were anathema to everything we believe in: a special judge alone has access to the evidence; the defendant has no access to it; the defendant’s barrister has no access to evidence that he can share with his client; only the prosecutor has access to it. The whole issue is stacked against the defendant, and therein lies the potential for the most massive miscarriages of justice. Those of us who have spent much of our lives campaigning against miscarriages of justice will be well aware of past secrecy and the need for openness.
	In opening, the Minister without Portfolio made much of the fact that the closed material procedure would be decided by a judge. Clause 6(2) states that
	“a party to the proceedings (whether or not the Secretary of State) would be required to disclose material in the course of the proceedings to another person (whether or not another party to the proceedings)”,
	where
	“the degree of harm to the interests of national security if the material is disclosed would be likely to outweigh the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice, and”
	where
	“a fair determination of the proceedings is not possible by any other means.”
	It seems to me that the Secretary of State would have considerable power in that situation.
	I hope that the House understands the depth of feeling among many eminent people outside the House who have spent their lives campaigning for justice—against all the odds—and sometimes achieved it. Those who campaigned on Hillsborough eventually achieved justice, as did those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. I do not want us to create yet another situation in which future miscarriages of justice can take place.

John McDonnell: Like me, my hon. Friend was here when the Special Immigration Appeals Commission procedures were introduced, about which we expressed some concern. He has referred to cases about which concerns have been expressed. Would he also like to comment on clause 12 with regard to SIAC? The case of (AHK and Ors) v. Secretary of State, which concerned a refusal of British citizenships on grounds of character, summed up what can go wrong in these procedures. Justice Ouseley said that
	“he has been told nothing other than that naturalisation has been refused on the grounds of character and that it would be contrary to the public interest to give reasons.”
	He continued:
	“It is not so much that the case is untriable…it is simply that the evidence means that the Claimant cannot win.”

Jeremy Corbyn: Having dealt with cases of constituents who have been refused naturalisation or British nationality on the basis of evidence that is unavailable, I understand exactly my hon. Friend’s point and the point made by Judge Ouseley.
	In its briefing on the Bill, Reprieve told us:
	“The Bill, even as amended, would still mean that…Members of the public could lose their cases against the state without ever knowing why; or knowing what evidence was used against them”,
	It also states that the
	“Government would be able to cover up evidence of wrongdoing”,
	and that
	“Ministers and officials would be able to exclude the other side from court, effectively putting themselves beyond challenge and above the law.”
	The Bill would allow Ministers to use secret courts in a wide range of cases, such as those of soldiers or their families bringing negligence claims against the Ministry of Defence over faulty equipment resulting in injury or death. Many colleagues have taken up cases of soldiers who have died in the most tragic circumstances and where, on the face of it, there is a case against the Government. It could also include victims of torture or rendition seeking redress in cases in which the Government have been involved and actions brought against the Government over corruption in arms deals, which was a point I raised with the Minister earlier.
	Amnesty International has also expressed deep concern about the Bill. It is concerned that the move
	“could potentially mean that individuals and their lawyers who are seeking to establish the extent of the involvement of UK officials in serious wrongdoing such as torture and enforced disappearances, will be prevented from seeing crucial documents on “national security” grounds. This secrecy could be maintained potentially indefinitely, even if there is an overwhelming public interest in disclosure.”
	I appeal to the House to think carefully and seriously about what we are discussing and voting on here today.
	A couple of months ago, I was in the High Court to hear the case being brought by the Mau Mau people from Kenya relating to the abominable way in which they had been tortured and ill-treated by the British armed forces in the 1950s. They finally won their case and were able to present their evidence to the court. That evidence had been hidden for 40 years. They had been denied access to it, and it was only their determination that brought it to light. It had been held using secrecy arguments, and I suspect that if legislation such as this had already been in operation, they would still not have been able to bring their case to court.
	Before voting on the Bill, we must think seriously about the implications of creating an even stronger secret state and an even less accountable judicial system. We must also remember that our function as Members of Parliament is to represent people against power, so that they can get justice through an independent judicial system.

Stephen Phillips: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who speaks consistently on this and other civil rights issues, even if he does not often agree with the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). I suspect that, on this occasion, he is also unlikely to agree with me.
	I have to confess that I hesitated before deciding to speak in this Second Reading debate, partly because I see a Bill Committee looming and the prospect of
	12 days in the spring with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) is not particularly attractive to any of us, and partly because consensus seems to be emerging among the majority of Members that, unsatisfactory though the Bill might be, it is none the less a necessary measure.
	There is little disagreement on the first part of the Bill, which will establish a regime for the oversight of the intelligence services that has long been called for. That is much to be welcomed. It is the second part of the Bill, which deals with the closed material proceedings—wrongly, in my view, called secret courts—that appears to cause controversy. I shall focus my remarks on that part of the Bill, although not at length as consensus is emerging and many of the points that I wanted to raise have already been discussed. The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), for example, identified many of the arguments that I would deploy in support of the Bill being given a Second Reading.
	Many lawyers, myself included, regard the Bill as at best undesirable and possibly pernicious. The obvious reason for that is that the principle that has served us well for many years is that we do justice publicly. We also permit full access to the evidence for those against whom allegations are made—whether serious or not; in these cases, they usually are—and for those who make those allegations, in order that a fair adjudication can be openly and publicly be made of their complaint and of what has been said against the accused.
	The Government need to persuade those who have expressed concerns that the mischief against which the Bill is said to be directed is so serious that, in the limited number of cases to which closed material proceedings would apply, we need to take a fundamentally different approach from the one that has traditionally applied to the administration of public justice. The Government have identified four problems, although they have not always been clearly articulated. It is worth identifying them, for the sake of those such as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) who are troubled by the Bill, in order for me to explain why I think the Bill should be given a Second Reading.
	The first is the continued necessity in the security climate in which we the United Kingdom and, indeed, the western world find ourselves to have access to very good intelligence material—material gathered not only from our sources and by our own agencies, but by the agencies and sources that are available to our allies overseas. The difficulty the Government face as regards those agencies capable of providing us with information that is essential for the defence and security of this country is that when something is secret and comes from a foreign intelligence agency and potentially a source of that intelligence agency that might be exposed or, if it is a live source, even threatened, the Government need to be able to give an absolute assurance that that material will remain closed and will remain secret. Without that assurance—this applies not only to the United States but to other intelligence agencies, too—the Government face real difficulties in ensuring that the intelligence necessary to protect all our constituents will be available in this country.
	There is, of course, a related point—that the intelligence services here need to be able to recruit their own agents and need to be able to assure those agents from the very first that their identity and anything connected to anything
	that might reveal their identity will remain secret. That is the first issue that calls to be dealt with, and it supports the Government’s position on part 2.
	The second problem, as I see it, is that undoubtedly in the past the Government—perhaps not only this Government but the preceding one—have been obliged to settle cases where they had legitimate defences to the accusations that were made against them, but in respect of which they felt, for the reasons I have already given, that those defences could not properly be advanced, usually for the simple reason that it would expose intelligence sources and, potentially, the way in which intelligence is gathered.
	Those settlements are wrong for two reasons. First, there is never any adjudication whatever of the underlying merits of the case, and from the perspective of justice as a whole—and, I might add, from the perspective of claimants as well as that of the Government—that is totally unsatisfactory. Secondly, because the Government have been obliged to settle these cases—a point touched on by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles—large sums of taxpayers’ money have had to be paid out. In many cases, they might have been lost by the Government and perhaps the damages were justified, but we do not know where the money has gone in other cases and we do not know, for example, that it has not gone to fund activities that are, putting them at their very lowest, detrimental to the interests of this country. That is the second reason why the Bill, and particularly part 2, is deserving of a Second Reading.
	There is a related third point—the reputational risk to this country. These cases are settled, albeit with no admission of liability, in circumstances where, as was said earlier, much of the world will say that there is no smoke without fire. People might say that the British Government would not settle these cases unless there was some truth in the allegations, which does this country enormous damage overseas. It also runs the risk—I say this particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester—of encouraging those who would see this country damaged by radicalising young Muslim men overseas who will believe that this country has no respect for the rights it is trying to push on the Islamic world.

Andrew Tyrie: Does my hon. and learned Friend not also accept that the extension of what would be portrayed as secret courts—CMPs—could also damage Britain’s reputation abroad?

Stephen Phillips: I accept my hon. Friend’s point, but for my own part I do not think the risk is nearly as great, and I would go further than that. If we carry on calling CMPs “secret courts”, there might be that risk, but we are not talking about secret courts. We are talking about courts in which defendants and claimants are properly represented, where there is access to the information necessary to ensure as fair a resolution of the issues between the parties as possible and, indeed, where the proceedings are overseen by a judge. I shall come back to this in a moment, but the alternative in many of these cases is, as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend, that there is no justice at all—either because they are struck out or because the Government have to settle them. That is totally unsatisfactory—much more so than the Government’s proposals in the Bill. I think it was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation who said that we were in the world of second-best
	solutions, and indeed we are. No one wishes to see this legislation. I myself have described it as at best undesirable, and possibly pernicious. However, we are where we are. We face the threats that we face, and we have to deal with them.
	My fourth reason for thinking that the Bill deserves a Second Reading is that, at present, justice is not done at all in many cases of this kind. As I said earlier, the Government, because they cannot disclose information, are obliged to settle some cases when a perfectly good defence is available to the security services. There are, potentially, other cases—and at least one, which I mentioned earlier, may have already arisen—in which a claimant has a legitimate cause of action which may or may not be capable of being sustained at trial, but owing to the success of a public interest immunity application, information that would otherwise have enabled the issues between the parties to be properly resolved is not available.
	In a third group of cases, such as the Carnduff case, there is the possibility of a stay if the public interest immunity application fails, and those are the cases that trouble me particularly. Claimants are essentially being told, “You may have a perfectly good cause of action, but the public interest of protecting national security outweighs the public interest of doing justice in your case.” That seems to me much more undesirable than saying to a claimant, “You may press ahead, but part of the proceedings will take place in a forum that is no longer open to the public.”
	The Bill may indeed be a second-best or an undesirable solution, and part 2, at least, may even constitute a pernicious piece of legislation. However, for the four reasons that I have given, I approve of the principle behind it. I believe that that principle has been generally accepted throughout this House, and was finally accepted by their lordships, subject to the amendments that they made. It is a principle from which I do not believe parliamentarians can legitimately distance themselves. It is the principle that we need to be here to protect our constituents, and it is the principle that no matter how unsatisfactory the Bill is, it is the right Bill, and, regrettably, a necessary measure.

Mark Durkan: Other Members have observed that there seems to be consensus on part 1 of the Bill, but I may be more of a doubting Thomas in that respect. I am not sure that part 1 will do all that it promises to do for the Intelligence and Security Committee, the House or the Bill itself.
	I do not, of course, speak with experience of membership of the ISC, although I was offered membership a number of years ago, in bizarre circumstances. In fact, at one point my party was offered two seats on it, which seems bizarre even now. At that time we were negotiating the St Andrews agreement, and Tony Blair got it into his head that I might be prepared to accept annex E—which re-routed some of the Patten provisions relating to intelligence and national security—if I was offered a place on the ISC.
	Hours later, I was advised that two places were on offer. I had said that it would be very difficult for a member of my party to sit on the Committee, supposedly to offer scrutiny and challenge, while being unable to
	tell anyone that he or she had done so or to say anything about it. The consolation was that we would have two members there, each of whom would vouch for the other in our secrecy. It was a bit like King Louie in “The Jungle Book”: “Have a banana; have two bananas.”
	Members have said that the Bill is a significant advance on existing law, but I am not sure whether it is adequate or truly accountable. Part 2, obviously, has raised the more substantial issues and differences. I am at a bit of a loss, because I hear differing and confusing arguments. I hear those who commend part 2 saying that closed material procedures are not a particularly big departure because they are already used in cases of various types, and that the Bill merely codifies them in a particular area. I also hear the argument that PII is no good, that it cannot be used, that it stops cases being defended and that by its very nature it means that evidence cannot be brought. The reality is that PII can be dealt with on an evidence-by-evidence basis, and does not have to be done entirely wholesale. We have seen where it has worked in the past when the courts have granted immunity in relation to certain material, evidence and witnesses. They have protected their anonymity and secrecy and have protected material from being disclosed altogether. In other cases, they have protected material by due and measured redaction. The idea that PII is basically just a one-size-fits-all option is nonsense, as it can be used in a measured way.
	I feel almost as though I am involved in some sort of closed material proceedings, because everyone else seems to be aware of why certain cases were settled as quickly as they were. I do not know why the Al-Rawi case was settled in the way that it was. It had not even gone to the Supreme Court once appeal was allowed, yet settlement took place. Was it so compelling that the state had no other choice? Was there no way of having more measured terms? I do not know, but other people seem to. They seem to have been briefed and perhaps they are privy to such things, but I certainly am not and as a legislator I am not prepared to pass serious, significant legislation on spec based on somebody else’s hunch that the state would not have settled if it did not really have to.
	I come from a part of the world where the state has done many things and failed to do many things. People attributed all sorts of reasons and pure motives to it, saying, “They wouldn’t have done that if they didn’t have to.” We know from last week’s revelations that that logic absolutely stinks. One of the worst things was that all down the years, when such things were happening, they were not sufficiently challenged by enough people in this Chamber and in other places.
	When we receive such legislation, we must question it and ask what the compelling reason for it is. We must also look to those who know something about such things. Lord Justice Kerr has been widely quoted today on the subject of closed material proceedings, but he was not the only one to make significant statements in the Al-Rawi judgment. Lord Dyson, giving the lead judgment, said that the introduction of closed proceedings in ordinary civil claims would involve
	“an inroad into a fundamental common law right.”
	He went on to say:
	“The PII process is not perfect, but it works well enough. In some cases, it is cumbersome and costly to operate, but a closed material procedure would be no less so.”
	Other hon. Members have quoted Lord Kerr’s concluding judgment. An additional point he made was:
	“This would not be a development of the common law”
	as the Government
	“would have it. It would be, at a stroke, the deliberate forfeiture of a fundamental right which…has been established for more than three centuries.”
	In those circumstances, I do not think that we should lightly pass the Bill on the basis that the other place has made a few amendments that make it good enough.

John McDonnell: The point has been made throughout the debate—I have not heard it all as I have been in a Westminster Hall debate—that in a piece of legislation that is actually flawed, we must ask whether the balance of interest lies in protecting the state or the individual. Clearly, the Bill protects the state rather than the individual.

Mark Durkan: That is exactly the nature of the Bill. It is a measure to ensure that the state will be protected in various litigations and that it will have an absolutely unequal power to use a procedure that will frustrate a case against it using a special secret procedure.
	We are told—I have listened to other hon. Members say it—that the amendment to clause 6 in the other place that changed “must” to “may” now means that the proceedings are entirely a matter of judicial discretion and that we should therefore trust the courts. Of course, however, that is only in relation to clause 6. Once the national security case has been engaged by a judge under clause 6, clause 7 means that what happens is entirely in the hands of the state. That joker is played by the state and cannot be predicted. PII means that a judge can be selective and can scrutinise what evidence might compromise national security and what should or should not be admitted in balancing the interests of hearing the case and protecting national security, but that will no longer be the case. We are being sold a false argument about just how big a difference there is because of the change from “must” to “may”.
	As well as listening to learned judges who have considered the matter, we should look to those who also have experience of closed material proceedings and such legislation—the special advocates. The Minister without Portfolio told us, in effect, that special advocates underestimate their own power—they do rather well under such provisions and have quite a good score rate. Let us listen to what the special advocates and other observers say. The late Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, described the role of a special advocate as akin to
	“taking blind shots at a hidden target”.
	Special advocates themselves have described it as “shadow boxing” in circumstances where
	“you are speaking into a black hole because you have no idea if your strategy and points are on the money or wide of the mark”.
	So special advocates are frustrated by their own professional standards. They must be particularly frustrated in relation to the interests and rights of their clients.
	Remember, that is what we are talking about—people who have reason, good or ill, for taking a case against the state. If, in doing so, they are speaking of actions that have fundamentally affected their human rights, that have done damage or harm to them which in other circumstances and at the hands of someone else would be deemed to be illegal, that is serious. We should not
	treat the issue as a matter of administrative convenience. The argument should not be that it takes Ministers too long to decide whether they want to look for public interest immunity certificates in respect of all the different pieces of information, that it could take them a whole day to do so, and that we have to come up with something quicker, so we go for closed material proceedings. That is not the way in which we should legislate for justice to be done.
	Others have quoted the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson. On one occasion he attended a session with representatives of the Government and of all three intelligence services and counsel. He was talked through seven significant cases and left with a bundle of top-secret material in each case, including evidence and internal and external advice, which he had taken the opportunity to read. Three of those seven cases were civil damages cases. His conclusion was that
	“there is a small but indeterminate category of national security-related claims . . . for civil damages, in respect of which it is preferable that the option of a CMP . . . should exist”—
	only preferable that the option of a CMP should exist, but the Bill goes down an almost compulsive route in relation to that and legislates too far.
	There is the irony that the very procedure that the independent reviewer engaged in was a closed material procedure. He looked at files that were presented by Government. He listened to the representatives of the intelligence agencies and their legal advisers, and he formed an assessment with no other view being given from special advocates or anybody else, yet it is his advice and his conclusions that we are told we should listen to.

Simon Reevell: One of the least attractive things I have seen in 20-odd years practising at the Bar is lawyers trying to persuade a judge that he should deal with evidence in private because the evidence had the potential to embarrass the then Government. It did have that potential. Employees of the Ministry of Defence on oath were giving evidence that six months before the invasion of Iraq, they had been told not just that it was going to happen, but the day on which it would take place, and that the British Army had been told that it could not commence its training because it would give away the fact that a decision had been made. A properly robust judge sent them away and told them in no uncertain terms that the functions of the court do not include preserving the modesty of the Government.
	So I come to the proposals, proposals that for years and years no one in the world of civil litigation ever dreamt or thought were necessary. Suddenly we encounter a different sort of civil litigation in which the body most concerned is the state. Allegations are made that the state has been complicit in kidnap and torture—we call it rendition, but rendition simply means kidnap and torture—and that drone strikes have killed innocent families, and suddenly the civil rules that have been good enough for as long as anyone can remember are no longer good enough and there needs to be secrecy. It is, at best, an unfortunate coincidence that the need for secrecy coincides with litigation in which the state finds itself at the very heart.
	The effect of the proposals could be that a claimant who brings a case is suddenly and quite literally ushered out of court and told to take their lawyers with them. They will then have to sit and wait until they are invited to go back in, at which point they might be told, “Sorry, but you’ve lost.” The reason is that these proposals are not the same as PII, although there has been much talk of PII, and they are not simply a replacement for it.
	The way litigation works means that parties to it must consider whether they possess material that might assist the other side. If they have such material but want to keep that secret, they can make a PII application. If they win they are allowed to keep that secret, and if they lose they have two options: they can hand the material over or they can settle the case. That is what PII is all about, but that is not what this proposal is about. This is about being able to use material aggressively against a case. It is about the state having material that it can use to defeat a claim and wanting to use it in secret.
	At the moment, if the state wants to use that material it must do so in open court, but it is about the decision on how to fight the case; it is not about public interest immunity. That is why the Bill clearly goes through the PII phase before getting to the point where closed hearings are contemplated. For example, if I know something that might assist you when you sue me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must either tell you or claim PII, but this proposal is about me wanting to use something against you to defeat your claim and you will never know what it is. You will not have the chance to question it, to say that it is not accurate or to say that it has been fabricated. You will know nothing about it. You will simply be told, “I’m sorry, but you’ve lost your case.”
	When such a proposal is introduced on the back of litigation aimed at the state, making allegations of the worst sort of behaviour on the part of the state—I have referred already to kidnap, torture and killing—people are bound to be suspicious. Either it is just a coincidence, or someone somewhere wants to take on these claimants using information that no one will ever be able properly to test.
	The House sat very quietly last week to listen to the Prime Minister deal with the report prepared in respect of Mr Finucane. He ended his observations by saying this:
	“One thing this Government can do to help is to face up honestly when things have gone wrong in the past. If we as a country want to uphold democracy and the rule of law, we must be prepared to be judged by the highest standards.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 299.]
	These proposals are not a very good start.

Robert Buckland: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, and professional colleague, the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell). I accept with alacrity what he says on the differing functions of PII and closed material proceedings, but information will be dealt with in closed material proceedings that could equally support the claimant’s case, just as there will be information that might undermine it. That is why it is important to support the amendment made in the other place to allow not just the defendant, such as the Government, but other parties, including the claimant, to make an application for the use of closed material proceedings.
	Like my hon. Friend, I have spent many years in the criminal courts. I have, I suppose, been dealing with human rights; that was my stock in trade as a barrister prior to my election to this place. We did not really use the words “human rights”; every day we did a job of dealing with the liberty of the individual and the power of the state when it came to imprisoning and dealing with individuals who may have committed criminal offences. It was my life, my bread and butter, and my stock in trade.
	It is difficult for me to accept any departure from the principles of open justice. I never liked being confronted with public interest immunity applications, whether I made them on behalf of the Crown or in relation to third party disclosure, or whether I found out about them later because I was not party to the application. These principles do not sit well with me. However, I learned a long time ago that politics has to start from the world as we find it, not necessarily the world as we would like it to be. No matter how idealistic I may be and how important certain principles are to me and many other Members, the realities of international politics and security will often conflict with some of the principles that I hold so dear.
	The scenario that the Bill seeks to deal with represents one such conflict. In an ever-changing world, one certainty endures. We have more and more information sharing and the world is ever more interconnected, so greater and greater challenges to our national security are posed every day. We also live in an age when decisions of the state itself are rightly called into question. As a result of those proper questions being asked, we are seeing a rise in civil litigation mounted against the state by individuals who claim grievance.
	All those factors mean that a challenge has arisen. Given the information provided by the Government and my understanding of the situation, the problem is not going away any time soon—in fact, it is going to get worse. The Government cannot hide behind inactivity when looking at that challenge; only last week, we saw a further settlement of a civil claim, in this case by the Libyan dissident Mr al-Saadi. That is but the latest manifestation of an issue that is causing real concern not only to the Government and security services but to those who risk their lives for this country and to the public at large who are rightly worried that millions of pounds of their money—our money—is paid over for reasons to which they and we will never be privy in any real sense.

Simon Reevell: Does my hon. Friend accept that a good way to avoid having to make payouts to Libyan dissidents would be not to be involved in kidnapping them and shipping them and their families back to Libya to be tortured?

Robert Buckland: We do not know that, and that is the problem with the current system. I would accept my hon. Friend’s argument if we had a system in which such issues could be properly tried, or at least tried in some second-best scenario; I accept that closed material proceedings are very much a second best to the principles of open justice in which my hon. Friend and I believe. However, we will never know—we will never be privy to
	whether the British state infringed principles of justice and international convention when it came to unlawful rendition.

Malcolm Rifkind: I reassure my hon. Friend that once the current police inquiries are complete, the intention of the Intelligence and Security Committee is to continue our investigation, which we had already started, of the allegations about United Kingdom complicity in Libyan rendition and to publish our conclusions to the extent that we can.

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, and commend him and his Committee for their work in that area. It is something that I would like to know more about, as would many people in this House and outside. Sadly, the Gibson inquiry had to be terminated, or postponed, because of ongoing criminal proceedings. I very much believe that wrongdoing should be exposed, but, as has been pointed out, in the case of this civil proceeding we do not, and will not, know the precise merits or otherwise of the claim that was made against the British Government.
	Much has been made of the views of Mr David Anderson QC, the Government’s independent reviewer on terrorism. I will spare his blushes. It is absolutely right to say that he, like me, is very much a reluctant convert to the limited use of closed material proceedings in certain cases where national security is very much at the heart of the claim. He makes the very important point that in referrals made by Her Majesty’s Government, we must put our trust in our judiciary to come to fair and balanced decisions on the material before them and to apply fairness not only to the Government but to claimants, because these questions apply equally to both parties in any such case.
	Their lordships’ amendment to clause 6 opens up the limited discretion in the clause as originally drafted. I welcome that. It is wrong to say that there was no discretion before, but it was limited. They have expanded that discretion by the use of the word “may”. It is a much wider discretion than many of us in criminal practice have got used to. For example, in the sort of discretion that sentencing judges have in dealing with mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment, the word used is very bald. “May” cannot put it any more simply. The amendment is very significant, and the fact that the Government have rightly accepted it eases many of the concerns that I and others had about the extent of the power of Ministers, in effect, to limit the court’s ability to disagree with a reference from Ministers.
	That is the trigger, but it does not end there. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said that a blanket then comes down on the use of closed material proceedings. I have great respect for him, but I do not think he is right. It is not a question of a blanket coming down, because the judge has a duty to look at each individual piece of evidence to determine whether it should be the subject of open proceedings or closed material proceedings. The judge will retain that important check and balance in looking at the evidence.
	We need to put firmly to bed the notion that closed material proceedings are a silver bullet that will allow the Government always to be able to win—to successfully defend—these cases, because they most certainly are not. The recent decision by SIAC which had the effect
	of allowing the release of Abu Qatada is a notable example of that. CMPs were used in that case. The result was perhaps not popular in many quarters, but it is an example of the court being able to cope with the second-best solution and to reach an outcome that was, on a neutral interpretation, a fair one. CMPs can be a way for claimants to ensure that all the issues they want to see raised are properly considered by the court as part of the case.
	Public interest immunity has been prayed in aid as a substitute for the process, but it is not; its function is different. PII relates to the extent and quality of disclosure, which occurs at a different stage from the fact-finding process itself. Material that is successfully subject to a PII certificate remains undisclosed to the party seeking it. There is no gisting or anything else. Redaction of documents may well happen, but that still means that the material sought by the party who wishes to see it remains undisclosed. PII has a practical effect, whether it is on the continuation of a prosecution in a criminal context or, as in this context, the continuation of a defence in a civil case. The choice for those at the receiving end is either to disclose the material or to stop the case. That means, as we have already discussed, that cases in which genuine allegations of wrongdoing are made will never properly be dealt with by the court. It is the justice gap that has been spoken about not just in this place but by eminent Members of the other place, most notably Lord Woolf, Lord Mackay and Lady Manningham-Buller, who all support the use of closed material proceedings in restricted circumstances.
	As other Members have said, there is nothing groundbreaking about the use of closed material proceedings in English law. They have been used for some years, in both SIAC and the regime of terrorism prevention and investigation measures, and in a way, as I have said, that cannot be regarded as resulting in manifest unfairness or injustice.
	I would welcome clear and continued assurances from Ministers that, if future consideration is ever given to further extending the use of closed material procedures to other areas of law, it is this House that will deal with the issue and that there will be strong grounds to justify any further extension before we allow it to happen.
	We live in an imperfect world. It is a troubled world where sometimes grim reality invades noble principle. This Bill is an exemplar of that, which is why I support its Second Reading.

Michael Crockart: I am very pleased, as a former member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. Importantly, I was a member when its report on the Bill was written and published. We spent a large amount of time examining the Bill, which was a difficult thing to do as a non-lawyer, but it has been a worthwhile, though arduous, journey from the first time I asked what Norwich Pharmacal actually meant.
	When the original justice and security Green Paper was introduced in October 2011, there was understandable and justifiable concern about the proposals. In their original form, it was clear that they were very broad in scope, and some in the Government talked up the need for the powers through rather apocalyptic speeches
	about the danger to national security—a danger that, once examined, clearly did not exist. There was, as has been said, a perception of a danger to national security—there is one that needs to be dealt with in relation to Norwich Pharmacal—but an actual danger did not exist.
	Since then, it is welcome that the Minister without Portfolio has issued many reassurances about the intended narrowness of the Green Paper’s application. It is unfortunate that, whether as a result of lax drafting or conflicting views within the Department, the circumstances allowed confusion to develop about what the Government’s intentions were for closed material procedures.
	It is clear that there is a theoretical need for change. One can imagine a situation—many such situations have been mentioned today—in which a fair trial of a civil claim cannot proceed because of the amount of material that cannot be disclosed on the grounds of public interest immunity. It has, however, been exceptionally difficult, even with access to many interested and experienced witnesses, to establish the likelihood of such a theoretical possibility actually materialising. The Bill is undoubtedly an extremely complex and difficult balancing act, but the judgment that must be made requires us to understand whether a problem exists and, if so, its scale, and whether this response is proportionate to the problem.
	The Joint Committee was clear in its view that the proposed balance was not correct and, therefore, suggested amendments, which were tabled in the other place. I pay tribute to the excellent staff of the JCHR, who helped us to marshal the evidence and formulate the amendments to improve the Bill. In spite of those significant changes, the Bill’s proposals, particularly those in part 2 relating to closed material procedures, still constitute a radical departure from the UK’s constitutional tradition, which is one of open justice and fairness.
	The JCHR report questioned whether the Government had
	“persuasively demonstrated, by reference to sufficiently compelling evidence, the necessity for such a serious departure”
	from those fundamental principles. Our conclusion was that the Government had
	“failed to discharge that burden of justification”.
	The Joint Committee suggested amendments to make the Bill compatible with the bedrocks of justice, openness and fairness, while recognising the national security concerns put forward by the Government. Our aim was to achieve a fair—or at least a fairer—balance. The Bill considered by the JCHR did not achieve the right balance. The Bill before us today is much closer to sitting within the parameters of natural justice and fairness protected by the common law, because of the excellent work in the other place. The amendments recommended by the JCHR and adopted to date are, as my noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill said,
	“designed to keep faith with the fundamental principles of justice and fairness in our common law system, within the rule of law, and national security protected by the independent judiciary.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1822.]
	I do not intend to go through the entire list of amendments suggested by the JCHR, but I will mention the most substantive amendments that have led to successful changes. First, a judge will decide whether a closed
	material procedure should be used in any given case and the decision will not be taken in form or substance by the Secretary of State. Secondly, a CMP will be available only as a procedure of last resort if fairness cannot be achieved by other means. That allows judicial discretion first to consider alternative methods, such as the public interest immunity system and requiring the court to consider whether a claim for PII could have been made. Thirdly, the court will be required to balance the interests of national security against the interests of fairness and open justice in deciding whether to agree to the use of a CMP at the outset. Finally, it will be open to either party to apply for a CMP and the court will also have the jurisdiction to consider the request on its own motion.
	If the Bill had come to this House without some of those measures, the case for throwing out part 2 would be significantly stronger. CMPs are not perfect justice, but they may have a place. David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation who has been quoted extensively today, has said that there is
	“a small but indeterminate category of national security-related claims, both for judicial review of executive decisions and for civil damages, in respect of which it is preferable that the option of a CMP—for all its inadequacies—should exist.”
	A number of the JCHR’s recommendations have not been adopted at present. The first is the introduction of a sunset clause. The second is the compulsory reporting on and review of the use of CMPs by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The third is an undertaking that any litigant who is excluded from the open hearing by the CMP will be given, at the very least, a summary and the gist of the closed material sufficient to enable them to give instructions to their legal representative and the special advocates, so far as is possible. The absence from the Bill of such a disclosure obligation seriously limits the opportunities for special advocates to mitigate the unfairness caused by the Bill’s departure from open and, more importantly, adversarial justice. I hope that those issues will be given further consideration by Members of this House in Committee. I am fairly confident that that will happen.
	Had it not been possible to write effective safeguards into part 2, I would share the concerns that are still being raised by many organisations such as the Bar Council, the Law Society of England and Wales, Liberty and Justice. Their concerns demonstrate that there is still significant review work to be done by a Committee of this House. In as reasonable a way as I can, I caution the Government against any attempt to remove the improving amendments that have been made in the other place.
	I support the Bill’s passage into Committee, but with the words of Judge Learned Hand in mind:
	“Justice is the tolerable accommodation of the conflicting interests of society, and I don’t believe there is any royal road to attain such accommodation concretely.”
	The administration of justice is undoubtedly a balance, but it is the most important balancing act that the state carries out. We should proceed carefully in changing that balance.

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart). I seem to remember studying some of
	the judgments of Justice Learned Hand myself when I was doing my jurisprudence course at the London School of Economics. I knew they would come in handy one day.
	I was much impressed with the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), and I agreed with him entirely. He put it more elegantly than I could—that is why he is a Queen’s counsel and I am not. I also rather agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland).
	I want to concentrate on part 2 of the Bill, because it relates to the area in which I have been interested as a lawyer. It seems to me that we should not allow the best to become the enemy of the good. The best, of course, is open hearings in court with the normal, full process. However, in a limited number of cases there are particular circumstances, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon rehearsed well, in which it is necessary to have a different procedure.
	With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), who is not in his place at the moment, I do not accept the proposition that the Bill will be used to prevent people from bringing claims. Nothing that is currently available in open court will become secret as a consequence of it.

John McDonnell: Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example of how the argument about security is used—the Shrewsbury 24, the pickets who were imprisoned 40 years ago. When they sought the information upon which they were arrested and prosecuted by the Government, the letter sent back from the Secretary of State for Justice told them that a “security blanket” had been wrapped around that information, so the records would not be published on the grounds of national security. Is that the sort of issue that the Bill should cover?

Bob Neill: With respect, it seems to me that at the moment public interest immunity would be invoked in such a case, possibly by an ex parte application, without any notice to the claimant. I fail to see how that would assist people in such a situation. It is better at least to have the opportunity for any relevant and admissible material to be considered, albeit through the less than perfect closed material process.
	In my 25 years at the Bar, I predominantly practised in the criminal jurisdiction, and it is right that the Government are not seeking to apply the closed material procedure to that jurisdiction. When I started, public interest immunity criminal cases were a little-developed area, and the jurisprudence grew as time went on to reflect, as other Members have said, the changing demands placed upon the courts system and the nature of how intelligence operations were conducted. The jurisprudence moved flexibly to reflect that, and the same is occurring in the Bill.
	I know two things from my experience of the use of PII in criminal cases. First, the judges took extremely seriously their responsibilities in relation to PII applications, including their duty to review the material and their initial rulings. I have no reason whatever to doubt that the same judicial meticulousness will be applied to the closed material procedure in civil cases. It is right that there should be safeguards, which I think are broadly accepted and will be taken forward. I, too, am pleased
	that the discretion allowed for in clause 6 is widened by the use of the word “may”. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon that that is adequate, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to resist the temptation to refine the definition further by including certain factors in the Bill. The risk of that would be that jurisprudence would grow up around the definition of those factors, and case law would eventually erode the jurisdiction and make it worse than simply using the word “may”.
	The second point that strikes me from my experience at the Bar is that, as has been observed, it is not always the individual who is the loser as the result of a PII application. I believe the same will apply to the closed material procedure. I remember, in a criminal case, invoking not PII but the court’s inherent jurisdiction to sit in camera. Part of the mitigation that I needed to advance on my client’s behalf related to his activities in relation to reputable freedom movements in the Soviet bloc. I could not advance that mitigation in open court, because the consul of the Communist-controlled country was represented in court and was sitting in the gallery, and there would have been serious consequences for my client and his family. Mr Justice Steyn—later Lord Steyn; a very eminent judge—acceded to the application, and important material in my client’s favour was put before the court. Again, the point is that the material could be ventilated, and it is better in a civil case that that is done through the closed material procedure than that it would be were it not ventilated at all. That is why we should not allow the best—an open procedure—to become the enemy of the good, or CMP, which is an improvement in civil cases on existing PII arrangements.
	There is general consensus about the importance of removing the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction from such cases. We have to be realistic and concede that although many meritorious claims are brought against Government and Government agencies, many unmeritorious claims are brought in the courts. There is, as the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) suggested, a growing tendency for jurisdiction shopping in relation to the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, which has moved away from its original purpose in intellectual property cases to cases of this kind. It is not right that we should allow that to be abused in these cases.
	Similarly, it is not right that the British taxpayer should pay millions of pounds when it is not possible to resist a claim in cases where, if the material were considered by the judge under the closed material procedure, it might be discredited. In the criminal jurisdiction, the choice facing the prosecutor is either to disclose material if ordered to do so or not to continue with the case. We have a tradition in this country of respecting assurances that have to be given in the interests of furthering justice. We have discussed that in relation to the assurances that we give the security services of our allies abroad.
	We already do so in a different way in criminal cases in relation to informers, and have done so on more than one occasion. It is distasteful but necessary that we sometimes employ informers so that wrongdoers can be brought to book, and it is important that they are given assurances by the police that their anonymity will be protected. In certain circumstances, rather than disclose someone’s identity, I and other prosecuting barristers would offer no evidence so as not to put the informer’s identity at risk. Otherwise not only are they at risk, and
	not only is an undertaking breached, but there is a risk that other people will be less willing to come forward and provide information that might be helpful. The same applies even more strongly to assurances given in relation to our national security. I do not think that we should worry about that, subject to the proper safeguards.
	In conclusion, it is important to stress again that we are not discussing secret courts. Yes, it is a less than satisfactory process, but ultimately it is one part of the process: the rest is an open process, and the hearing of the claim, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon set out, remains in the public domain. A number of hon. Members have cited Lord Kerr and the al-Rawi case, but to balance Lord Kerr’s judgment it is worth quoting the judgment of Lord Clarke, who took a different view:
	“A closed procedure might also be necessary in a case in which…the non-state party…wishes to rely upon the material which would otherwise be subject to PII in order to defend itself in some way against the state. In such a case either party might seek an order for such a procedure based on necessity, namely that such a procedure would be necessary in order to permit a fair trial.”
	That is a balanced statement on what is proposed in the Bill. I agree with Lord Clarke, and it seems to me that Mr Justice Ouseley, in the AHK case, made a similar proposition.
	When he responds to the debate, I hope the Minister will take on board some of the legitimate concerns that have been raised. I shall support the Bill on Second Reading and we can examine the detail in Committee. We should not, however, allow ourselves to retreat from a necessary—albeit not always desirable—step in this class of case, and allow the best to become the enemy of the good. I therefore hope that the Bill will commend itself to the House.

William Bain: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).
	This debate has been about balance, and when the Minister responds I hope he will acknowledge the sense across the House that the Government are not yet in quite the right place regarding the balance between national security and the hard-won liberties of the individual. I hope that the Government will be open in Committee to amendments that make that balance more durable.
	Justice systems across the United Kingdom have proven extremely adaptable to reforms such as the Human Rights Act 1998, which gave effect to the European convention on human rights in UK law. Such reforms provided what in some circumstances are universally applicable rights to people on UK territory, as well as recognising the growing importance of judicial review. Such proceedings can sometimes be inconvenient to Ministers and troublesome for the judiciary, but we should remember that the values of justice and fairness in our judicial system guarantee civil liberties and the rule of law.
	The Bill deals with the conundrum of trying to strike a balance between the sometimes competing concerns and interests of the state and the individual, and it proposes the creation of closed material procedures in civil proceedings. As a national security measure that is
	reserved to Parliament under the devolution settlement, the Bill would apply to civil courts in Scotland. I know that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) read out some comments, and no doubt there will be discussions between this Government and the Scottish Government, but the Bill is clear that the measures would apply to civil courts in Scotland.
	I welcome the amendments made in the other place that strengthen protection of the individual and, in the words of the noble Lord Pannick,
	“help to ensure that, if we are to have CMPs, there are proper limits, proper controls, a proper balance and judicial discretion, and that CMPs are a last resort,”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1816.]
	The Bill as originally presented in the other place would have permitted one party—the Government—to decide whether to use CMPs. Critically, if CMPs are to be introduced, it must be for the courts and not the Government to determine whether they should be used in any given case, and only as a last resort. Questions of fairness and relevancy of evidence are for the courts, not the Government, to determine, because one of the parties to a CMP should not be able to determine such matters on its own. It is therefore welcome that the Minister without Portfolio indicated that the Government are minded to accept the relevant amendment.
	Having opposed the amendments with such vigour in the other place, I hope that the Government will now accept in their entirety all amendments accepted by their lordships. Although clause 6 as presented to this House appears to contain greater balance than the measure originally presented to the other place, I am concerned that such balance does not extend sufficiently to clause 7. In particular, the Bill does not create a statutory obligation on the courts to provide the gist of the argument to the excluded party, which is vital to them being able to advise adequately their special advocate. That protection has been sought by the Law Society and is crucial to ensure a better balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the state.
	Natural justice is a key principle of civil law across the United Kingdom, and we have heard comments from Judge Learned Hand. Perhaps I may remind the House of the dictum of Lord Chief Justice Hewart from the 1924 case of R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy:
	“Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
	One key rule respected by that principle is the right to a fair hearing, which is underpinned in law by article 6(1) of the European convention on human rights.

John McDonnell: May I point my hon. Friend to information given by Nicholas Blake QC—he is a special advocate—on what happens after a judgment is given in a Special Immigration Appeals Commission case? He says:
	“If the special advocate thinks there is an error in law in the closed judgment, he gets permission to say, to pass a message out to the other team to say ‘I think you should be appealing, I can’t tell you why’…So there is a sort of open appeal. ‘We think there is something wrong but we don’t know what it is.’ And then the court goes into closed session”
	to consider the matter. That is farce, not justice.

William Bain: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I will give a similar example later in my remarks that bears out the point that the Government must be careful on how their proposals tie with the common law right to natural justice.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend referred to clause 7 and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to a special advocate. To some extent, are those points not covered by clause 7(1)(d) and (e), which relate to the need to provide a summary? It is not quite the same as “gisting”, but a summary would give the sort of information my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington implies does not exist.

William Bain: I respect my right hon. Friend’s point, but the Law Society and many constitutional lawyers are not completely taken that the Bill provides sufficient protection in terms of common law judgments. As the debate continues in Committee, I hope we can impress upon the Government the advantages of giving greater safeguards in clause 7 to individuals and their legal advisers.
	A number of decisions have created the presumption that it is not enough for an individual to be informed of a hearing affecting his or her rights or freedoms. There is also an obligation to inform them of the gist of the case—that comes from common law. That principle is vital, not least in a society governed in accordance with the rule of law. I hope the Government therefore take the advice they have received from the Law Society and others, and that they are prepared to support an amendment in Committee if the Bill receives a Second Reading.
	In the Minister’s opening speech, he cited Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers in support of the principle of CMPs in exceptional cases, but perhaps he might reflect on the fact that Lord Phillips has pointed out that, if a closed material procedure is brought into law, it would “undoubtedly be challenged” in both the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. The Government must therefore establish that any incursion into the fair trial rights that are protected by article 6(1) of the convention is the minimum necessary and subject to suitable available safeguards and protections. The Bill allows insufficient protection of the continued balancing of interest after a CMP has been granted—that was pointed out by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and in the Bingham Centre response to the Green Paper. In allowing insufficient protection, the Bill unsettles an element of Scots law that has existed since 1956. I hope that the Minister resolves that problem in Committee.
	As Tom Hickman, of University college London wrote for the UK Constitutional Law Group’s website on 27 November, in the absence of
	“such a balance, CMP operates like a black box from which no information of any use or interest emerges. All information of even marginal sensitivity is immune from disclosure even if this is overwhelmingly in the interests of justice for it to be disclosed.”
	The point was made more clearly in the decision in an analogous control order case—the case of CC and CF—earlier this year. British authorities admitted that they were involved in the arrest, detention and deportation of the defendants, but the defendants were given no reasons why they lost in the case, nor were they provided with any detail on the Government’s arguments, because the
	judge said that that part of the judgment must remain closed—the other party was excluded from it. The Government, by accepting reasonable amendments, could surely avoid such cases in the civil courts, if the CMP is introduced, and avoid the outcome warned of by the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Committee recommended restricting the use of CMPs to: UK intelligence material that would, if disclosed publicly, reveal the identity of UK intelligence officers or their sources, and their capability, including techniques and methodology; and to foreign intelligence material provided by another country on a strict obligation of confidentiality.
	Even Cabinet minutes are not excluded from disclosure in a case involving serious misconduct by a member of the Cabinet, so why are the Government adopting such a restrictive interpretation in relation to the public interest balance in clauses 6 and 7? I hope the Minister will answer two further questions in his response. If the system comes into operation, will the Government pledge to review it, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights advised, and place that commitment in the Bill? Secondly, will the Minister accept the amendment made in the other place to permit both parties to apply for CMP, not just the state?
	The debate has been about balance. This has been a genuinely constructive and helpful debate, both for Opposition Members and Government Members. The Government have made some progress. I hope that in Committee considerably more progress is made, so that we can ensure that the interests of the state and national security are undoubtedly protected, but that we do not cast away the hard-won liberties of the individual.

Ben Gummer: I echo the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). This has been a balanced and constructive debate, and it is good to see the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) return to his place. He and I sat through a similar debate on the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill a little over a year ago, as did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). We all discussed issues of similar import concerning a similarly tiny number of people. For the TPIMs legislation, that number was nine people, and here we hear from the Government that there are 20 cases pending. While the sums of money involved are considerable, they are not significant in the grand scheme of Government spending. However, the issues of principle are of the highest order and it is entirely right that we have had such an interesting and well-informed debate after that in another place.
	In introducing the debate, the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) made a powerful case for why the current situation cannot continue and why the liberty of the litigant, sacrosanct in normal circumstances, to know the evidence that might demolish his or her case, should not be sacrosanct in these unordinary circumstances. They are not ordinary, because the evidence that might be presented could imperil—in many cases, would imperil—the lives not only of agents or officers, but citizens of this country.
	We cannot, therefore, continue with the situation we have at the moment, but I would like to add two other liberties that are offended by things as they stand. The first is the liberty of the individual agents and officers, who have not been mentioned so far. Although they are anonymous in most of these instances, in a civil action they are accused of the most appalling crimes—rendition, torture, or procuring murder—and yet, through the agency of their employer, they cannot defend themselves and say that these things did not happen. I hesitate to say that spies have feelings too, but it is clearly wrong to allow someone, just because it is easier for Her Majesty’s Government to raise their hand and pay up, to have it on their record for the rest of their life that they were part of a conspiracy or action of that magnitude. In not defending them in court, we do them a disservice that the Government have a duty of care to address.
	A bigger liberty is at stake, however, and that is the liberty of the nation. It seems to me that learned and noble Members in another place have forgotten that the state also has a personality and seem to think that, because the state is not a person, it is perfectly acceptable for it to admit liability where it might have none and to pay damages when it might not need to. Yet the states does have a personality. The Crown has a personality—it is the vessel of our shared values and experience, it is our common interest as a nation—and, if the state admits liability when it should not, it impugns those values, it demeans us as a nation and, perhaps most importantly, it devalues an apology and admission of liability that might be made when it should be made.
	In order to protect the liberty of the nation and individual officers, it is vital, in the interests of justice, that we enable the state to defend itself in these civil actions. Here, then, I part company slightly with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) when he says that this is an unsatisfactory solution, but one that is better than the current situation. I do not think we need apologise for the proposals, because actually they are a reaffirmation of justice in very difficult circumstances: we know that not to do so would be to deny the very values on which that justice is built, but, if the information were to be presented in open court, the evidence might imperil the lives of those whom all of us assembled here—both in what we do and in the legislation that we pass—seek to protect. We must give them the justice they deserve.
	The current inequality might be having a bizarre result. It is possible, and we have no guarantee it has not happened, that a civil litigant who is known to the security services but whom, for whatever reasons they have not been able to prosecute—certain Opposition Members will know of such instances—could bring a civil claim and win damages for tens of millions of pounds, and that money could then be recycled back into terrorism and used to attack the very people who have defended, or not defended, their right to bring a case. That is a bizarre situation and a travesty of justice—it is grotesque—so it seems wrong that any of us seek to try to defend the status quo. It is everything that we should be seeking not to do.

Stephen Phillips: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real travesty is the Government having to settle cases and pay damages in circumstances where they might have a perfectly legitimate defence, but which cannot be
	deployed in court because it would reveal confidential information? It is when that money goes back into the hands of terrorists that we need to be particularly concerned, and that is one reason why the Bill needs a Second Reading.

Ben Gummer: Absolutely. I could not improve on my hon. and learned Friend’s words. It is wrong not only because the money might be recycled back into terrorism, but because it devalues the point when we have done something wrong and need to admit liability and learn from it. It turns everything on its head, and that is why we need the change.
	I wish to make a slight political point. There have been some brave speeches from certain Opposition Members who know a great deal more about this matter than people sitting on the Front Bench of Her Majesty’s Opposition. It is odd to hear ill-informed remarks about the Bill being directed at those on the Government Front Bench, given that the Government have been open about what they want to achieve, and reasonable and generous in trying to accommodate the amendments from another place. In the spirit of that, it behoves Her Majesty’s Opposition not to use words such as “humiliating” or “climbdown”, but to acknowledge that the Government are listening carefully to, and accommodating, the arguments being made in both Houses. I hope that, at the end of the Committee stage, the Government will come back to the House with a Bill that will provide justice to the individual officers, to the intelligence agencies, to the nation and to the litigants. I hope that the Bill will do something that we in this place are supposed to do—namely, to ensure that the dispensation of justice is indeed just.

Diana Johnson: The Bill has implications for liberty, security and justice. The fact that those are serious matters has been reflected in the number of reasoned and considered contributions that we have heard today. We have heard 22 speeches, in addition to those from the Front Benches, many of which have been informed by Members’ experience in government and on the Intelligence and Security Committee. The whole House welcomes those contributions. In particular, I would like to mention those made by the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind); the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis); and the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), as well as those made by several former senior Ministers, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). The leader of the Welsh nationalists, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), also made one of his usual considered contributions.
	The Bill has already been the subject of considerable debate in the other place, where many Members were able to draw on their considerable experience to scrutinise it and suggest improvements. We in this House are
	grateful for their efforts and the improvements that have been made. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the work of my noble Friends Baroness Smith and Lord Beecham. I am also pleased that the Minister without Portfolio said today that the Government would not seek to overturn some of the amendments made during the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords, and I look forward to hearing further details from the Minister in Committee as to why they disagree with certain others.
	The matters in the Bill are sensitive and complex, and the Opposition will work with the Government to reach consensus, wherever possible, based on the evidence available. The introduction of closed material proceedings is undoubtedly the most controversial part of this legislation, and the Opposition accept that there are rare occasions when their use will be necessary. We cannot continue to accept a situation in which the Government are forced to settle claims because they are unable to adduce evidence without compromising vital national security evidence.
	In the other place, the noble Baroness Manningham-Buller spoke passionately about the need for the security services to be able to protect their standing in the eyes of the public and for dedicated security staff not to have their reputation traduced because there was no mechanism for challenging allegations. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) explained earlier, we had serious concerns about the scope of closed material proceedings as proposed in the Green Paper and again in the Bill as it was first presented to the Lords. We are pleased that the Government have listened to the strength of feeling expressed in the other place and by the Opposition, and that they have now indicated they will not seek to overturn all the Lords amendments. As I said earlier, we look forward to the debate in Committee.
	The Bill also introduces limits on the courts’ ability to demand the release of information, following on from the principles developed in the case of Norwich Pharmacal. That case established the principle that an innocent third party could be forced to disclose information to enable an action to be taken against another party. In the case of Binyam Mohamed, this principle was extended to cover issues of national security. We know that the then Foreign Secretary stated that the release of such information was likely to cause real damage to both national security and international relations. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism, David Anderson, QC, has now presented evidence that there are several examples where evidence has not been freely given to the United Kingdom because of the danger of its being released into the public domain. Several members of the Intelligence and Security Committee have raised this and confirmed that it is a problem, too.
	I think there is an acceptance on both sides of the House, although not by all Members on either side, that this situation is unacceptable. The Opposition accept there is a pressing need to reassert the control principle, to ensure that foreign Governments can be confident that any information passed to the UK Government will remain in the hands of the Executive. We will therefore support the Government in their attempts to prevent the disclosure of information under the Norwich Pharmacal principles where the information is sensitive, and where its release might compromise our relations
	with foreign allies. The Opposition have concerns, however, about the breadth of the current definition of sensitive information and we hope to persuade the Government in Committee that the control principle can be protected within a narrower definition.
	Finally, let me return to part 1. Although it is perhaps not as controversial as part 2, it is equally important, strengthening both the oversight and the public standing of the security services—aims behind which the whole House can unite. In emphasising why public support is so important to the security agencies, I refer again to the noble Baroness Manningham-Buller who drew on her own considerable experience to say in the other place:
	“The support of members of the public is necessary not only in terms of general support for the organ of government but because, to do their work the agencies require that support every day of the week. They need the public to join them as recruits…they need them as sources of information, and they need them to help in whatever way possible...Therefore, when we talk about public opinion, the services require the help of the public to do their job and, in my experience, they get it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 July 2012; Vol. 738, c. 932-33.]
	Like the noble Baroness, the Opposition believe that public support for the security agencies will be enhanced by greater openness and scrutiny. For this reason, the Opposition support the Government in what they are attempting to do in strengthening the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Indeed, we would like to see the Government be far bolder in recasting the role of the ISC to improve public understanding and scrutiny.
	Let me deal with two further issues. One is about the Bill’s wording in respect of ongoing oversight, and I am sure we will spend some time in Committee looking at whether that wording is correct. The second is the call for further resources to allow the ISC to take on these additional roles. We also hope that we will be able to work with the Government in Committee to extend the Bill’s provisions in three ways.
	First, we would like to see annual public hearings with the head of each security agency. In the US, such hearings are a well-established part of the congressional oversight of the security agencies, and perform a vital role in educating the public about the work the intelligence services carry out. I do not see why the same role could not be performed in the UK.

Malcolm Rifkind: The hon. Lady and the House may be interested to know that the ISC has decided—it has the agreement of both the Government and the agencies—to hold its first public hearing, probably some time in the early part of next year. If it is seen to be successful, it should indeed become a regular event.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee for giving us that information. It seems very positive that the first item on our shopping list is going to happen.

Malcolm Rifkind: What is the second item?

Diana Johnson: Ah! Secondly, we would like to see the ISC hold pre-appointment hearings for the agency heads. The Labour Government pioneered such hearings for other public appointments, including permanent secretaries, and we now feel it is right to extend these hearings to security agencies.
	Thirdly, we would like to see the ISC operate under the protection of parliamentary privilege and be able to take evidence under oath. The Opposition believe that the only way to guarantee parliamentary privilege is to make the ISC a Select Committee. To confer parliamentary privilege by means of an Act of Parliament would make it subject to legal challenge. That is unacceptable, particularly as witnesses might divulge sensitive information to the Committee, believing it to be subject to privilege, only for that to be overruled by the courts.
	We accept that there would be practical problems in the creation of the ISC as a Select Committee, and that foremost among them is the need for its members to be vetted and approved. We hope to work with the Government to find a solution to that problem during the Bill’s Committee stage.
	In the other place, the Government’s further reasons for opposing the creation of the Select Committee were unconvincing. Lord Taylor’s arguments seemed to focus on the difference between statute and Standing Orders. If the ISC were recast as a Select Committee, the rules and procedures needed to safeguard the special nature of its proceedings would be determined by Standing Order. If it were created as a new type of quasi-parliamentary entity, its rules would be enshrined in statute. The Minister said that that extra protection was essential, as a Standing Order could be amended by a single vote in the House. The implication seemed to be that that would enable the rules to be altered on a whim.
	I think that it does Parliament a great disservice to suggest that either House might make such a serious decision without proper consideration. On the basis of my experience of pushing for the modernisation of Parliament and for reform of its sitting hours, I can say that I have found it extremely reluctant to alter any of its Standing Orders without very good reason and evidence; and I hope that the Minister has been convinced by the serious nature of today’s debate, and the series of debates in the other place, that it cannot possibly be said that Parliament does not afford these matters the full seriousness that they deserve.
	Let me finally reiterate the Opposition’s support for the aims that the Government are pursuing. We think that the Bill is far better as a result of the amendments made in the other place. In Committee, we will work to extend the provisions of part 1 to protect the amendments to part 2 that were made in the other place, and to restrict the definition of sensitive information. I look forward to working with the Minister. I know how seriously he takes the views of other Members, and I hope that we shall be able to reach a consensus on the best way to proceed.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful for the range of contributions that have been made today, including those made by informed members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the Justice Committee. This is an important Bill, and it is right for it to be the subject of such vigorous and thorough debate in the House.
	As is plain from the quality of the debate since the introduction of the Bill, these are challenging matters, and I respect the concern that we should get the balance
	between justice and security right. The changes in the global landscape present us with a number of complex problems that we cannot ignore. The concepts of justice, the rule of law and human rights are fundamental principles of which our nation has a rich heritage.
	Having carefully examined our options, we believe that the Bill will enable us to tackle the problems that we face both justly and securely, but I accept what has been said by a number of Members today about some of those difficulties. The Chairman of the ISC, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), said that the Bill was not perfect, but was a great deal better than what we have at present. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said that we must start with the world in which we find ourselves, rather than the world that we might like it to be.
	Those themes were underlined during the debate, along with other challenges that were mentioned by Members. I was struck by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) about the changes that had been made in the Lords, and the impact that they had had on her impressions of the Bill. I was also struck by the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) about the need to ensure that liberty and justice were appropriately balanced. I can say to him very clearly that this is not about expediency but about how we can ensure that the difficult challenges of providing safety and security while reflecting justice are properly reflected in the changes made to the Bill. The same applies to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes).
	I recognise that some Members in the Chamber this afternoon are fundamentally opposed to the Bill in principle and do not accept that the provisions are balanced in the way that I have characterised them. The speeches from the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) underlined some of those themes. The situation we are in at the moment is not right, however, and does not meet many of the objections they proffered against the Bill. We believe that it will make an important improvement to the situation by ensuring that difficult cases, which cannot be heard at all because the evidence does not come within the ambit of the court or the public view, are put before a judge so that justice can be done.
	The points made by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), which were reflected in the speeches made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), underlined that if there is no adjudication, that is unsatisfactory for justice, particularly in the context of the cases that are settled in which there is a defence for the Government but the moneys have to be paid out. We judge the reputational risk that poses for the Government and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) highlighted, for those individuals concerned in those particular cases to be significant.
	We have seen significant changes over the past few decades in the evolving threat from terrorism. The UK faces a global terrorist threat from beyond our shores and our intelligence services are heavily committed to protecting our national security by tackling those threats. We are also now in a more litigious society and the combined effect has seen an increase in numbers of civil claims against the Government. The problem is that in these cases, the material the Government need to defend their case is often classified and cannot be disclosed to the court without compromising operations or risking the sensitive sources and techniques on which we rely to keep the people of this country safe. As the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, said in Committee in the Lords,
	“PII has the very unfortunate effect that you cannot rely on the material that is in issue, whereas both the claimant and the Government may want to rely on that material.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 July 2012; Vol. 738, c. 1189.]
	The result is that at present the courts cannot rule in those cases, so the Government might be left with no option but to settle. That is why the Bill seeks to introduce the use of closed material procedures in a small number of cases that hinge on sensitive national security material.
	Some hon. Members have suggested that the public interest immunity system is perfectly adequate to deal with national security matters. Let me be clear that the Government are not trying to abolish PII through this Bill: it will continue to exist and be used in certain contexts. Without the possibility of a closed material procedure, however, a very small number of cases that hinge on national security-sensitive information will not be able to reach a conclusion. When the very material that would determine a case would be excluded from PII, the case cannot be fairly concluded without a forum for it to be heard in. If it is central to the Government’s case, the case cannot proceed and the Government may have to settle. Vast sums of taxpayers’ money could be paid out as a result.
	Some have argued that PII leads to more information being disclosed than would be the case under a CMP, but we do not accept that that is the case. The court can order the disclosure of material, notwithstanding the damage that would be caused to national security. But the Government then have the choice not to rely on that material, to make admissions or to seek to settle the case entirely. That means that such a damaging disclosure is never made. So, in practice, we believe that no evidence that can currently be heard in open court will be put into closed proceedings in future. Only evidence that would otherwise not see the light of day will be heard by a judge in closed proceedings.
	There have been concerns that the claimant will be kept in the dark about accusations against them, though I hope it has been made clear through a number of contributions to today’s debate that that is not the case. It does no harm to restate that the Bill will introduce closed material procedures only in civil cases, not criminal cases, where the Government are the defendant, and claimants will have full knowledge of the allegations that they are making.
	CMPs will allow the Government to defend their case and the claimant will have a special advocate working on their behalf, fighting their case. Moreover, it could well be that information that could be considered in a
	closed material procedure is of benefit to the claimant, and having the case heard using a closed material procedure does not guarantee that the Government will win.

Mark Durkan: Will the Minister address the implications of schedule 2 part 2 as it applies to Northern Ireland? That provides that where the court is of the opinion that there are or that there will be section 6 proceedings, a jury can be dismissed. If there is a jury trial, the jury can be dismissed, so it is not just a matter of select proceedings. The provision fundamentally alters the nature of the trial. What reputational damage does that do to the due character of the devolved justice system?

James Brokenshire: I am clear that, as we have said throughout the debate, the measure does not relate to criminal matters. It relates only to civil proceedings. If there are concerns, I look forward to robust scrutiny, debate and discussion in Committee. I know that hon. Members on both sides will make their points clearly. As right hon. and hon. Members who have previously served on Bill Committees with me know, I welcome all those contributions and we will respond to them.
	The Lords indicated that closed material procedures are absolutely necessary and strongly rejected an amendment to remove the CMP clauses altogether. It is worth noting that the amendment was defeated by 164 votes to 24. Fair points have been made. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) highlighted the issue of special advocates. We are working with the special advocates to establish where there may be further training needs, and on ways of dealing with some of the administrative issues and the processes involved. There are detailed points that we can return to in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman also highlighted the issue of inquests, a point that was touched on also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). We have considered this, but believe that the current arrangements, with an inquiry being established, are still the appropriate way forward, but I look forward to further discussion on those matters.
	I heard the points made from the Front Bench and more generally in relation to the part 1 provisions on oversight. We believe that the changes proposed in the Bill strengthen oversight. A good point was made that our intelligence agencies are better for the oversight. That view is reflected in all parts of the House, respecting and acknowledging the excellent work that they do for all of us in keeping our country safe. I look forward to further detailed discussions on those topics and on the memorandum of understanding that is being worked through with the Intelligence and Security Committee.
	In relation to Norwich Pharmacal, I think that there is broad agreement across the House that the issue needs to be dealt with. Essentially, we are the only country that has this type of arrangement, which was created through jurisprudence established to deal with intellectual property cases, rather than national security cases, in which there is the ability to obtain information in that way, and that impacts on the willingness of our international partners to share intelligence information with us in respect of the control principle. Again, I look forward to discussing the matter further in Committee.
	In conclusion, we strongly believe that the Bill is needed. Yes, there are difficult issues that need to be addressed, but when we look at justice and security we believe that justice is better served by ensuring that more cases are heard than are not heard. Essentially, the part 2 provisions are the fundamental issue at stake. Although I respect a number of important points that have been made this afternoon, that is the core of the issue. We believe that justice and security will be established through the Bill. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 262, Noes 18.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

JUSTICE AND SECURITY BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Justice and Security Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14 February.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
	5. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.
	6. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
	7. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	8. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on Consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.

JUSTICE AND SECURITY BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen’s  Recommendation signified.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) ) ,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Justice and Security Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(1) any expenditure attributable to the establishment of the Intelligence and Security Committee and the carrying out of its functions;
	(2) any expenditure incurred by virtue of the Act by any government department or Minister of the Crown; and
	(3) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other enactment out of money so provided.—(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.

Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived

[Relevant document: Twenty-second Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 86-xxii.]

Mark Hoban: I beg to move,
	That the House considers that the draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (European Union Document No. 15865/12 and Addenda 1 and 2) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the reasons set out in the Annex to Chapter 3 of the Twenty-second Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 86-xxii); and in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) of the Lisbon Treaty on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the presidents of the European institutions.
	This is the third time that I have moved a motion on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, is the inspiration behind this motion and I am pleased to support it. I welcome the ESC’s report on the European Commission’s proposal and I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss it on the Floor of the House.
	The Government share the Committee’s view that the Commission’s proposal is not consistent with the principle of subsidiarity. The proposal would establish a new instrument: the fund for European aid for the most deprived. It is intended to replace, from 2014, the European Union’s food distribution programme for the most deprived people. The current programme distributes food stocks such as butter, milk powder, beef, sugar, rice and cereals, and in 2012 the budget has a ceiling of €500 million.
	At present, 20 of the 27 member states participate. The main recipients are Italy, Spain, Poland, France and Romania. The UK has not participated since 1998, after which the previous Administration withdrew from the scheme. Both this Government and the previous Administration have opposed Commission proposals since 2008 to extend the programme and expand its social dimension. The UK has consistently set out its concern that the programme does not comply with subsidiarity.
	Nothing in the Commission’s proposals changes our position. As the Committee points out eloquently in its report, the Commission has not provided a convincing justification of the need for EU action. Indeed, in many ways the new proposal is even more objectionable than the current programme. It will be used not only to provide food aid, but to purchase and distribute basic consumer goods. Whereas the current scheme is optional, the new scheme will be obligatory on member states and they will be required to provide match funding of at least 15% of the costs.

Stephen Timms: I understand the Minister’s case that this could perfectly well be undertaken by national Governments, but do the Government intend to give any help to the network of food banks that is growing at a rate of, I think, three a week up and down the country and for which there is a clear need?

Mark Hoban: Food banks are undertaken by the voluntary sector. I will come on to the ways in which the Government provide support to people on low incomes or who are
	benefit recipients, in order to demonstrate why we do not believe that this EU programme is right. Our principal objection, of course, is one of subsidiarity, echoing the ESC’s comments, but also reflecting the previous Government’s stance when they withdrew from the scheme.

Luciana Berger: To pick up on the Minister’s point that the voluntary sector makes a choice to step in, we now have up to 300 food banks across the country under the umbrella of the Trussell Trust, which estimates that it will have fed about 250,000 people in our country by the end of this financial year. Does he think that it is right that the voluntary sector has to step in to provide people in this country with emergency food aid?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Lady is a prolific tabler of questions on this matter and I have answered one or two for her today. This initiative is undertaken by the voluntary sector. The previous Government ignored the existence of food banks. Even at the height of the recession, when long-term unemployment doubled, the previous Government simply ignored them and pretended that they were not there. This Government acknowledge the existence of food banks. They play an important role and enable people on low incomes to get food, toiletries and other basic needs, and to use their incomes or benefits for other purposes. We also signpost people to food banks, but what nobody has done yet—this point has been made on a number of occasions—is analyse who uses food banks and why.

Stephen Timms: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Hoban: I want to make progress. This debate is about European proposals to spend taxpayers’ money and, if I remember rightly, the Labour party seems very keen to reduce the EU budget. We look forward to hearing what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. I do not know whether he is suggesting that we should enter this programme and that he supports obligatory participation. Perhaps he will clarify his position now.

Stephen Timms: Does the Minister accept that the number of people using food banks is bound to go up further in the coming 12 months?

Mark Hoban: I am not going to predict that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has missed what has been happening recently. He should recognise that there are record numbers of people in work and that unemployment is falling. The number of people on out-of-work benefits has fallen by 199,000 since May 2010. I am not going to engage in making predictions, but I would have thought that he celebrates the fact that more people can look after their own families and that more people who want to work are getting into work, meeting that basic aspiration that we all want people to share.
	The right hon. Gentleman did not say whether his party will sign up to the Commission’s proposal and whether they want to spend more taxpayers’ money in Europe. Hopefully he will mention that in his remarks.

John Redwood: I congratulate the Minister on taking a firm line on this matter. I am glad that he is opposing this regulation. I notice that all matters have to be accounted in euros, which does not seem to be appropriate for a country that still has its own currency. What does he think the outcome is likely to be in the debates and discussions in which he puts our case?

Mark Hoban: At the moment, discussions are taking place in the working groups. One discussion has taken place so far and I believe that there will be another in the new year. There is currently a blocking minority that is opposed to the regulation. A number of member states that are concerned about the EU budget and the multi-annual financial framework are keen to oppose the proposal. Of course, the money will come out of the structural and cohesion funds, so it will not be spent on other ways to improve the economy across Europe.

Kate Green: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Hoban: I will make a bit more progress. I am sure that the hon. Lady has some interesting views on subsidiarity that she will want to share a little later.
	The Government’s view has not changed. We are unconvinced of the merits or appropriateness of the proposal. The principle of subsidiarity, which is enshrined in article 5 of the treaty on European Union, states that the EU should act collectively only when
	“the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States”
	on their own, but can “be better achieved” by action on the part of the Union. We consider that the measures to assist the neediest members of society, as set out in the proposal, can be better and more effectively delivered by individual member states through their own social programmes, not at an EU level. Member states and their regional and local authorities are best placed to identify and meet the needs of deprived people in their countries and communities in ways that are administratively simple and efficient.
	In the explanatory memorandum, the European Commission states that the ability of member states to support those who are at the margins of society has been diminished and that social cohesion is threatened by fiscal constraints. We recognise the need to protect the most vulnerable in society and are taking action to do so. However, as I have said, there is nothing in the proposal that could not be organised and financed by member states. The Commission provides no convincing argument for why it is necessary to superimpose a European scheme. The solution must lie with the member state, not at EU level. Member states have that responsibility and must take it. The Commission may argue that the response of member states to these issues is inadequate or that some member states make use of the food distribution programme. However, the Commission does not make the case that the situation is the same in all member states. There is, therefore, no justification for making the fund mandatory for all member states.

Kate Green: In a debate on food poverty a few days ago in Westminster Hall, which was called by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana
	Berger), the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) made much play of the fact that food poverty was being caused not, this Minister will be pleased to hear, by the actions of the Government—although some of us were sceptical—but by rising food and commodity prices around the world. Is that not exactly the kind of issue that is susceptible to collective European solutions, particularly when this country is seeing a rising number of people, including working people, having to access food banks because of the Government’s failure to act?

Mark Hoban: I am not entirely sure what European action the hon. Lady thinks would tackle that problem. We do need to examine the regulation of commodity markets, which is happening in connection with MIFID II—the second markets in financial instruments directive —at the moment. However, European Governments intervening to buy up food stocks might not be the most helpful action. Those with long memories, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), will acknowledge that the source of the programme in question was the intention to tackle another problem—the wine lakes, butter mountains and so on. European intervention perhaps causes as many problems as it is intended to solve.
	In justifying its position, the Commission points to the Europe 2020 strategy and its headline target of reducing poverty and tackling social inclusion. However, as the European Scrutiny Committee indicated in its report, the proposal was not envisaged when the Europe 2020 strategy was devised, nor does the existence of an EU target mean that action must be taken at EU level. In any case, the EU already has instruments to strengthen cohesion in the form of structural funds. We believe that EU cohesion policy should contribute to tackling poverty and the European social fund programme should contribute to helping disadvantaged people into work.
	We are also concerned that the proposal does not represent value for money and would be burdensome to administer. Using EU structural and cohesion fund processes to deliver the instrument in question would lead to heavy and costly administrative burdens on member states and partner organisations. The structural and cohesion funds are there for very different activities from the new fund. They do not buy and distribute food and consumer goods. The new fund will require different, and probably more burdensome, procurement, monitoring and auditing processes. Not only is it inconsistent with subsidiarity, it will also use resources that would be better deployed at national or local level.
	If the fund were removed from the proposals, the UK could argue for an equivalent reduction of €2.5 billion in the EU budget over the seven years of the multi-annual financial framework. Given the Labour party’s view, I assume it would support that.
	In opposing the Commission’s proposal, I reiterate that the Government strongly support measures to tackle poverty and social exclusion at member state level. In the UK, we have a full range of benefits and tax credits in place to cover financial needs for those in and out of work. We are investing £400 million in the current spending review period in helping local authorities prevent and tackle homelessness, and we are committed to eradicating child poverty. We are taking a new approach
	to tackling the root causes of such problems, including worklessness, educational failure and family breakdown. The EU structural and cohesion funds are better used in tackling the root causes of poverty than its symptoms.
	On food aid, the Healthy Start scheme provides a nutritional safety net in the form of vouchers for basic healthy foods and free vitamin supplements for pregnant women and children under four from disadvantaged and low-income families. Initiatives such as FareShare and FoodCycle are good examples of essential work that charities are doing to support communities. We therefore believe that member states are capable of taking such action to help the most deprived, and we are not convinced that the European Union is better placed to take such action.
	We agree with the European Scrutiny Committee that the Commission has provided no convincing argument that the proposal meets the principle of subsidiarity, and I thank the Committee for its work and for proposing the motion for debate.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s position and look forward to hearing the European Scrutiny Committee’s views in due course.
	First, we need to be absolutely clear that there is a large and growing need in the UK for the type of help that the fund would be designed to provide. The Minister mentioned FareShare a moment ago, and I notice that it gets a couple of mentions in the impact assessment of the fund, for example on page 100 of the bundle. As he rightly said, FareShare has never obtained any funding from the EU because the UK has not taken up the funding that is in place. It is slightly confusing that it is mentioned in the impact assessment, because that implies that it has been a beneficiary, but it has not. My understanding, however, is that €50 million is earmarked for the UK from the existing fund, none of which is currently handed over to the UK.
	There is certainly a rapidly growing need for the service provided by FareShare and food banks such as those supported by the Trussell Trust, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) referred to a few minutes ago. The latest annual report from FareShare showed that it spent £1.6 million last year. As those who are responsible for FareShare say, a small fraction of the €50 million earmarked for the UK would enable it to transform what it is doing. FareShare provides food to 800 charities and, through them, to almost 40,000 people a day who would otherwise not have enough to eat. It is a wholesale operation supplying food to charities on the front line, and the food that it is distributes is sourced from food retailers and manufacturers, for whom the food is surplus to requirements.
	A few minutes ago, the Minister said that everything was absolutely fine and that there really are not any problems in the UK: there are more people in work than ever before, and so on. However, the most recent annual FareShare report says:
	“More people are suffering hardship and needing food support than ever before. Demand for our food is rocketing.”
	The Minister, for reasons that I entirely understand, was unwilling to accept that the demand on food banks
	will go up in the next 12 months, but it will undoubtedly do so. Indeed, only yesterday, he sent me a written answer to a question that I tabled about the impact of the benefit cap in London. The information that he supplied was that in London alone, 27,600 households will lose income when the benefit cap takes effect in April, and of those, 10,800 households will lose over £100 a week. There is no doubt at all in mind or, I suspect, in the mind of any objective observer that the need for the kind of service that FareShare and food banks provide will only increase in the next few months.
	The number of food banks supported by the Trussell Trust, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree said, is about to top the 300 mark. Three new food banks are set up every week, so the number has doubled over the past year. They are all Church-based, and involve Church members and non-members in their governance; there are 3,700 churches and 3,000 schools involved at the moment. As my hon. Friend pointed out, a quarter of a million people will receive food from a food bank in the course of this year. It is a remarkable and impressive initiative, but it is also a terrible indictment that so many people in Britain cannot afford basic food, and have to go to a food bank to obtain it.

Luciana Berger: We are the seventh most industrialised nation, and the number of people accessing emergency food aid has exploded. It was 26,000 under the Labour Government—I make that point, because it was 26,000 people too many—but I wish to reinforce the point that my right hon. Friend has just made. By the end of the year, a quarter of million people will have had to go to a food bank. If Members go to meet the people who go to a food bank they will see that they do not go in with smiling faces—they go in hanging their heads in shame. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Government should do everything in their power to make sure that no one needs to access emergency food aid in the UK?

Stephen Timms: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful and telling point. As she will know, food banks work hard to minimise the loss of dignity involved in going to a food bank. For example, they often give out food in supermarket carrier bags so that it does not look as if people have been to a food bank. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a terrible indictment of the state of our nation that a quarter of a million people have to do that this year, and the number, I confidently and regretfully predict, is bound to go up over the next few months.
	Why has that terrible thing occurred? It is, of course, difficult to survive on benefits or on a low working income, and the Government’s plan to uprate benefits by less than inflation will undoubtedly make matters worse over the next few months—I have spoken already about the effects of the benefit cap that will take effect in April. The plight of those who lose more than £100 a week—as many will when the benefit cap comes in—will be desperate, and a surge of people will be drive to food banks, able to feed themselves and their families only as a result of the help they find there.
	The Trussell Trust—this returns to the Minister’s direct responsibilities—makes the additional point that of the 250,000 recipients we have heard about this year,
	100,000 are people for whom jobcentres have been too slow in making a payment or made a mistake. Food banks say that more people are turning up with no money because they have been sanctioned by Jobcentre Plus. Often, they have no idea why they have been sanctioned, and know only that they have got no money and must get food from the food bank.

Luciana Berger: My right hon. Friend will know that if someone goes to a food bank, they must tick a box giving the reason they have to access emergency food aid, and more than 40% say it is because of delays to their benefit payments. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that in an article in The Guardian, Ministers said they aim to ensure that 80% of recipients get benefits within 16 days? Sixteen days is long enough to wait for people who have no cushion or money at all, but what about the 20% of people who have to wait for more than 16 days? Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Interventions should be brief and one at a time. The hon. Lady has made her point.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As well as delays there is the problem of mistakes and people being wrongly sanctioned. Friday before last I met a young man in my constituency who has been sanctioned and told that he will lose benefits for 14 months because he is attending a residential course delivered by the Prince’s Trust. An agreement between Jobcentre Plus and the Prince’s Trust means that people on Prince’s Trust activities are not sanctioned if they are unable to sign on while on a residential activity, but in that case—and, I fear, in others—the agreement is not being properly implemented by the jobcentre.

Luciana Berger: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I hope not to intervene on him further. I have one more point for my final intervention. The Minister said that he welcomed the number of people who are in work, but we heard today that if people who access working tax credits call his Department’s phone line—I know this because my office called today—they are told that they have to wait three weeks for the form, and that when they get it back they must wait at least two weeks for it to be processed. Those are people in work who depend on additional funds to support them. Does he share my concern that although the Government are keen to see people in work, those are the very people who are being crucified?

Stephen Timms: That is an alarming report and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for passing it on. That matter will be on the Minister’s desk—[ Interruption. ] I beg his pardon; it will be on a desk in his former Department in the Treasury. There are worries—we have heard reports today—about delays in answering the phone at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and I hope that my hon. Friend’s point will be addressed.

Jim Shannon: The problem is not only about delays in payments but about the complications of the system and changes in people’s circumstances, financially and otherwise. Such things all contribute to the problems for those claiming housing
	benefit, jobseeker’s allowance, income support and so on. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the issue is not just about the speed of the process, but about making the system easier for people?

Stephen Timms: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. One thing that worries me is growing reports of jobcentres taking a trigger-happy approach to sanctions. People do not know why they have been sanctioned; all they know is that their money is suddenly taken away. The network of jobcentres is the Minister’s direct responsibility.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that, instead of sending a reasoned opinion on subsidiarity to the EU in respect of emergency aid, we should ask the EU to take over our social services budget?

Stephen Timms: I will come promptly to subsidiarity, which the hon. Gentleman properly asks me to address, but it is right first to set out the scale of the need for the kind of aid that, it is envisaged, would be supported through the fund.
	The big need that exists is being addressed by organisations such as FareShare and the Trussell Trust network of food banks. There is absolutely no doubt that that need will rise in the coming year. However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the question is whether funding through the EU is the best way to organise the provision of that help. The European Scrutiny Committee, of which he is a member, makes the valid point that there is no reason why the support cannot be delivered through a national initiative rather than by the EU—I agree with the Minister’s point on that.
	Setting up a fund at EU level is costly and bureaucratic, so I sympathise with the Committee’s concerns, but the problem is that the UK Government are not providing any such support. I therefore have some questions for the Minister and want to press him further. Does he accept that food banks and others provide a vital and indispensible service, and that without them tens of thousands in Britain would not have enough to eat in 2012? Given the changes that we know are coming in the welfare system over the next few months, does he accept that the problem is bound to get worse? To what extent are the Government interested in what organisations such as FareShare and food banks must do? Will he confirm—I am confident that this is true—that there is currently no UK Government support for them? I believe that local authorities have been able to help in some instances, but local authority funds are being tightly squeezed, so that source is diminishing.
	Will the Minister explain why the UK does not take up the €50 million share of the existing EU food distribution programme? That is not a partisan point, but a genuine inquiry—I was part of a Government who took the same view as the Minister, although the problem was a great deal smaller at that time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree has pointed out. No doubt there is a downside of taking up that aid, but it would be helpful if the Minister could explain what it is.
	Is it not a bit rich of the UK Government to argue against the new programme on the ground that they could do the same thing perfectly well—they rightly point to the principle of subsidiarity—if they in fact have no intention of doing so? If the fund is set up—as
	the Minister has indicated, that could happen despite UK objections—will he consider making the UK share of the fund available to FareShare and others that do such a vital job?

William Cash: To paraphrase President Hollande, with whom I have no doubt those on the Opposition Front Bench are in agreement, a Euro handout is not just for Christmas, but for life.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) pointed out, subsidiarity is the issue in this debate. I could spend a great deal of time debating this, but the European Scrutiny Committee’s report sets out some of the aspects in more detail. The Government have set out their arguments in the explanatory memorandum and the Minister has spoken, so it seems to me that on this occasion it would be more appropriate to deal with the question of subsidiarity than to attempt to deal with the questions that arise regarding the relationship between the member states themselves and the United Kingdom.
	A reasoned opinion is a new procedure provided for under the Lisbon treaty. It provides a mechanism for challenging Commission legislative proposals on the grounds of subsidiarity. In a nutshell, it means that national Parliaments have eight weeks, from the publication of a proposal, to submit a reasoned opinion. If such opinions represent one third of all the votes of national Parliaments, the Commission has to reconsider its proposal. The deadline in this case is midnight Brussels time on 26 December 2012, which is why the debate is taking place now.
	I am glad to read in the motion that the Government agree with the Committee’s proposals. I was also extremely glad to hear the shadow Minister effectively say that the Opposition agree with the principles that underpin our reasoned opinion. The motion before the House is to approve the draft reasoned opinion, which is set out in the annex to chapter 3 of the report, and to instruct the Clerk of the House to forward it to the presidents of the European institutions. That is the formality.
	The purpose of the draft regulation is to establish a new fund for European aid to the most deprived with, as the Minister said, a proposed budget of €2.5 billion for the period 2014-2020. I am bound to point out that those years reflect the period of the multi-annual financial framework on which a number of us voted recently, with respect to the European budget, saying that it should be reduced. The object in this instance, however, is:
	“to alleviate poverty and material deprivation in the EU by supporting national schemes for the distribution of food products and the provision of basic consumer goods for the personal use of homeless people or children. It would replace an existing EU Food Distribution Programme…in place since 1987”.
	The new fund will be based on the EU cohesion policy and resourced from the structural funds.
	With respect to the draft reasoned opinion, we conclude that the proposed legislation breaches the principle of subsidiarity for four reasons. The Commission says that there is uncertainty about the ability of some member states to provide the social investment needed to prevent further fracturing of social cohesion, but it does not demonstrate that all member states are in the same position. Furthermore, there is no evidence about which
	member states are unable to provide this investment. The draft regulation would, however, bind all member states.
	Secondly, the Commission has not provided sufficient justification for EU action on the basis of the Europe 2020 strategy—we go into that in more detail in our report, which is available to the House. A principal objective of the proposal is a desire for a highly visible EU funding instrument to mitigate negative perceptions of the EU’s contribution to economic and financial crisis. The Committee argues that such anxieties, whether founded or unfounded, are not a legitimate basis for EU legislation.
	I would argue that the answer to alleviating poverty and preventing the difficulties being experienced in member states lies elsewhere. No one can doubt that the difficulties in many member states—youth unemployment running at over 53% in Spain and Greece and vastly increased unemployment among young people and others in all member states, with one or two exceptions—are the result of the economic policies that have been pursued under the existing treaties. The answer lies in growing small and medium-sized businesses. The taxation then taken from their profits could be ploughed back into the relevant part of the public sectors in each member state—including in this country—to provide the kind of help that the Government here have rightly indicated they will provide in order to alleviate poverty, where it is necessary to do so.
	The question of whether these anxieties are founded or unfounded is not a legitimate basis for EU legislation. For EU supranational intervention on poverty and social exclusion in member states to be justified, there must be evidence of a problem that cannot be satisfactorily addressed by action at national level in all member states, but this evidence is simply lacking. I am glad to note that both the Minister and the shadow Minister agree with that proposition, and I repeat that the answer lies in growth, although how we get that growth is the subject for a separate debate.
	Another problem is that the rule of law, which is the basis on which the much-vaunted aspirations of the EU are meant to be based, is consistently being breached. I could give many such examples; we have reported on them in the past. There is article 122 in respect of the European financial stability mechanism, there are the breaches of the no-bail-out clauses, the failure of the rule of law in respect of the stability and growth pact and the 25/27 decision that the Prime Minister vetoed but which is still subject to a legal reserve. There have been many other instances and they are continuing.
	The principle of subsidiarity, which is embedded in the treaties, is meant to mean that, where matters should be dealt with at member-state level, that is where they should be dealt with, and the EU and its institutions should not arrogate to themselves the alleged right to legislate or impose burdens on member states in contravention of the legal requirements prescribed by the treaties, one of which is subsidiarity. It so happens that in the Lisbon treaty member states agreed to this procedure for reasoned opinions, which is a way of challenging a breach of the rule of law. For precisely that reason and in the light of the arguments I have set out, we put forward this reasoned opinion.
	There simply is no basis in existing legislation to justify the use of this €2.3 billion for the purpose described by the European Commission. The Commission’s impact assessment states:
	“European financial support can demonstrate the direct solidarity of the Union with the poor people, thus taking up on the broad request by European citizens.”
	It is difficult to understand what that is supposed to mean in practice. It is just a generalised description, rather than an analysis of the use of the power for the right purpose. I am bound to ask the Minister, therefore, whether he thinks that the cohesion funds—resourced as they are by member states—should be used to
	“demonstrate the direct solidarity of the Union with the poor people”
	in those member states. On the use of expressions about demonstrating direct solidarity with the poor people, I am bound to say that, yes, people are being seriously adversely affected, but we should be asking what the real cause of that is, and whether this is the right way to try to solve the problem. Those generalised expressions of anxiety are not the way to run the European Union.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the most extraordinarily condescending language for people who are on very high salaries and paying very low taxes to be using?

William Cash: I could not agree more, and I would love to go down that route. I will not do so tonight, but the overpayment of civil servants in the European Union is a scandal.
	Does the Minister believe that there is evidence of a broad “request by European citizens” for this type of supranational financial support? From what he has said, he clearly does not. The Commission’s impact assessment also states:
	“Currently more and more social stakeholders and EU citizens perceive the EU as a threat for their personal and collective protection.”
	It goes on:
	“Action at European level is required, all the more so, as a lack of social cohesion would hinder the Union's further development and undermine its legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.”
	In other words, this aspiration is based on the fact that the Commission wants to create a perception that the European Union is helping people, and it is then calling for a vast amount of money to justify that perception. In a way, this is an exercise in legitimised propaganda.
	The Committee found that statement startling on a number of levels. Does the Minister agree with the Commission that the EU is perceived as a threat to the “personal and collective protection” of its citizens? Does he think it legitimate for this type of humanitarian funding to be used to reinforce the EU’s legitimacy? This is almost akin to Soviet propaganda.
	A constant complaint by our Committee is that the Commission does not pay sufficient attention to the need to confirm that its legislative proposals comply with the principle of subsidiarity. I have given the House some instances of breaches of the rule of law. What kind of Government does the Commission purport to run, if it breaches the rule of law whenever it suits it to do so? When it was breaking the rules on the European financial stability mechanism, for example, Madame
	Lagarde came out of a meeting and said, “We’ve violated all the rules because we want to preserve the euro.” The thinking, which is very dangerous, seems to be: “Providing we can use the power that the member states have given us to get what we want, it does not matter whether we can justify our actions according to the rule of law or the principle of subsidiarity. We’re going to do it anyway, and we’re going to justify it by talking about people’s perceptions.”
	It is no wonder that people like me get up repeatedly—like pestering wasps, as I said to the Prime Minister the other day—and try to ensure that we keep the European Commission under surveillance and control. That is precisely what the European Scrutiny Committee is doing. We are ensuring that these matters are properly looked at, and I am delighted that the Government are going with us on this occasion. In this instance—believe it or not—the word “subsidiarity” is not even mentioned in the Commission’s explanatory memorandum. Will the Minister give us his assessment of the Commission’s assertion that the proposal does comply with subsidiarity? Does he agree that, in order to warrant supranational action, the Commission must show that the provision of emergency aid in some member states is undermining social cohesion in others, and that there is a genuine cross-border element involved? I am arguing the case on subsidiarity, never mind on the justification of the arguments on the merits of giving money. It is an utter, complete and devastating tragedy that people all over Europe are resorting to using food banks. I sympathise with the concerns of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) about those very people. I do not have any problem there. It is one of the reasons why I spend as much time as I can on matters relating to international aid in countries throughout the world and in the Commonwealth. I am concerned about these people, but we cannot use this sort of legislative framework because of the misuse to which it is being subjected. So does the Minister think that the Commission has proved the existence of this cross-border element?

Mark Hoban: No.

William Cash: I am delighted to hear that. This is where it gets tricky for us as a Parliament. We generally agree that this is not the right thing to do and I believe that the Opposition agree with that in terms of subsidiarity, although they have expressed their view about the question of the merits. The problem is that the number of reasoned opinions on this proposal will fall far short of the minimum required to oblige the Commission to reconsider. However, in the opinion of the Committee, that does not mean that a reasoned opinion of the House of Commons is without meaning or consequence.
	Finally, will the Minister tell us whether—and, if so, to what extent—the Government plan to make use of the reasoned opinion in the Council negotiations on this proposal. As I said to the Prime Minister on another subject, it is difficult—he is between a rock and hard place. There are dilemmas, but we as a Committee have a job to do, which is to point out where the subsidiarity has been breached and to present a reasoned opinion. What really troubles me is that we do our job and look to other member states that are constantly berating us for our so-called “attitude” towards the European Union. However, when there is an absolutely
	clear-cut breach of the rules that they have set themselves, they turn round and say, “Well, we listened to what you said. We are not going to enter into an argument with you about whether you are right on your reasoned opinion”—they cannot; there is no way that could possibly be justified—and then they say, “But we are still going to vote for it.” That is the way to destroy the European Union, and they are doing a pretty good job.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As so often, the European Union finds itself in these positions essentially by accident. If we look at the documentation, we see that this proposal would replace the existing EU food distribution programme for the most deprived, which has been in place since 1987. That was put in place when the common agricultural policy was building up butter mountains and milk lakes—and, rather excitingly, wine lakes—and it was thought that it would be a good idea to distribute them to member states and the people within them rather than allowing them to rot or having to pay large sums for storage. I cannot remember anybody getting any of the wine out of the wine lake, but that problem went away when the basis of subsidising the CAP was changed and there was a move away from all the payments relating to production. Production fell to be more in balance with demand, so the lakes and the mountains dissipated.
	Once the EU as an organisation has its hands on a particular power—[Interruption.]—or piggy bank, it is reluctant to give it up. It sees that it has this power that is no longer of any use because the intervention stores in member states cannot be used to provide food for the needy, so it comes up with a scheme—one that will cost €2.5 billion of our money—to provide a means of distributing that food in deprived member states. It then comes up with the reasons to justify it.
	It is worth noting on page 11 of the documentation the justification in the Commission’s explanatory memorandum. It states:
	“EU action is justified on the grounds of Article 174 (TFEU) which provides for the Union to ‘promote its overall harmonious development’ by ‘developing and pursuing its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic, social and territorial cohesion’, and on Article 175 (TFEU) which specifies the role of the EU structural funds in achieving this objective and makes provisions for the adoption of specific actions outside the Structural Funds.
	EU-level action is necessary given the level of poverty and social exclusion in the Union and the unacceptable diversity of the situation among individual Member States, further aggravated by the economic and fiscal crisis, which has led to a deterioration of social cohesion and lessened the chances of achieving the Europe 2020 Strategy’s objective in relation to the fight against poverty and social exclusion.”
	There we see the heart of the matter.
	Having bankrupted its member states by making them tie themselves into an overvalued euro, the European Union now says that people are poor and suffering as a result, and that we—the European Union—must therefore look after them. That is like shooting someone in the leg and then ringing for an ambulance. It is a most unsatisfactory way of carrying on, and it does not remove the offence of shooting someone in the leg in the first place. It is, in its way, deeply dishonest, troubling and bordering on wicked that the European Union should force such great austerity on Portugal, Ireland,
	Spain and, in particular, Greece so that grandmothers in Greece cannot afford their housing, and then come along with a scheme that will give them a little bit of money. Although €2.5 billion of our money is a lot to us who are paying into Europe, it is not a huge amount in the grand scheme of expenditure across member states. It is a little bit of money to spend on a propaganda exercise to persuade member states that things are not as bad as they seem.

William Cash: Does it not smack rather of the words attributed to Marie Antoinette at the time of the French revolution, when she allegedly said of the starving people of Paris, “Give them cake”?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I should like both hon. Members to return to the specific points that we discussing this evening. The scope of the debate is the subsidiarity issue as outlined in the proposed reasoned opinion, and that is what we should be discussing.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very glad that you have returned me to this absolutely key point.
	Amendment X to the United States constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, provides for all powers that are not specifically designated for the United States to be reserved to the states themselves. What do we have in Europe? We have the vague term “subsidiarity”, which means that if in an impossibly short time a sufficient number of member states lodge an objection with the European Commission, it may, out of its benevolent generosity and kindness, decide to reconsider its proposals. This is what we are doing: we are saying to the European Union, “We think that what you are doing is wrong. We think that what you are doing is so fundamentally wrong that it should be opposed, and that it is indeed a scandal. We think that what you have done to member states is ruin their economies and then give them back €2.5 billion of their own money.”
	The document states:
	“European financial support can demonstrate the direct solidarity of the Union with the poor people”—
	my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) quoted this as well—
	“thus taking up on the broad request by European citizens.”
	Well, I do not like being a European citizen anyway. I think that it is an affront to be called such a thing. I am a subject of Her Majesty, and long may I remain so. However, I cannot imagine that anyone in this country, whether he or she accepts the term “European citizen” or not, really wants the EU, having crushed nations, then to give them crumbs from the rich man’s table.
	I am therefore delighted that Members on both sides of the House support the reasoned opinion.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the House considers that the draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (European Union Document No. 15865/12 and Addenda 1 and 2) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the reasons set out in the Annex to Chapter 3 of the Twenty-second Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 86-xxii); and in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) of the Lisbon Treaty on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the presidents of the European institutions.

Business without Debate

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Risks and Safety Assessments on Nuclear Power Plants

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 14400/12, a Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the comprehensive risks and safety assessments (“stress tests”) of nuclear power plants in the European Union and related activities; agrees with the Government that there is a need to ensure that a robust EU nuclear safety regime is in place; and supports the Government’s view that any changes to the current regime should be evidence based to ensure that they are proportionate to the risks they aim to address and do not result in a shift of competence away from Member States.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Hemlington Library (Middlesbrough)

Tom Blenkinsop: The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Middlesbrough,
	Declares that the Petitioners acknowledge the unfair and savage cuts imposed on Middlesbrough and particularly the impact to Hemlington library; further that the Petitioners note that local authors Richard Millward and Peter Brunton support this Petition and also note the great work done by local Councillors Nicky Walker and Jeanette Walker who made this Petition possible, alongside local volunteers including school children from Hemlington Hall Primary, St. Gerard’s Primary and Viewley Hill School.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Communities and Local Government to explore every possible avenue, including the obtaining of funds from the development at Hemlington Grange, to keep Hemlington Library open.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc. [P001151]

HIGH CARBON INVESTMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Caroline Lucas: Almost a year ago, an open letter from a high-profile coalition of investors, politicians and scientists to the Governor of the Bank of England warned that the huge reserves of coal, oil and gas held by companies listed in the City of London are what they termed “sub-prime” assets and pose a systemic risk to economic stability. It is that risk and what could be done to protect the economy that I want to speak about this evening. I apologise in advance for the technical nature of the debate, but I hope the Minister will agree with me that the subject is important.
	I want to lay out the new maths of climate change, which quantifies the difference between the total amount of fossil fuels in existence that we know of and the amount of coal, oil and gas that can be burnt unmitigated if we are to have a decent chance of achieving the internationally agreed objective of limiting global warming to below 2°. Industry figures suggest that about 2,795 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide are locked up in the known proven coal, oil and gas reserves around the world. That figure can be compared with the much smaller amount, 565 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, that research by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research has identified as remaining in our carbon budget for the period 2011 to 2050. That shows that only about one fifth of known fossil fuel reserves can be burnt and their emissions released if we are to stay within the carbon budget. That analysis was confirmed by the International Energy Agency in its recent world energy outlook for 2012.
	Research by the Carbon Tracker initiative has shown that at the end of 2010, 745 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide were present as coal, oil and gas reserves on the stock exchanges of the world. That means that just the reserves owned by listed companies, if burned so that the carbon dioxide is released, already exceed the 2° carbon budget. In other words, there is a major disconnect between the direction the world’s stock exchanges are taking and global efforts to prevent dangerous climate change, such as the recent UN negotiations at which the Secretary of State worked hard to argue for a 2° threshold.
	Lord Stern made the following observation in a Financial Times article during the Durban climate conference last December:
	“As the negotiations at the UN climate change summit in Durban reach the critical stage, we must not overlook a fundamental contradiction between the way global fossil fuel reserves are evaluated and long-term policy goals. By ignoring this contradiction, companies and markets, as well as governments, are undermining management of the huge risks that rising levels of greenhouse gases pose to their survival.”
	As Lord Stern indicates, if greenhouse levels continue to rise, that poses significant risks to business as well as to society as a whole. For example, the insurance and property sectors are already seeing increased claims due to extreme weather events. To give just one example, the estimated property damage costs from Hurricane Sandy are $20 billion. Once the costs of lost business are added in, that could reach $50 billion according to some estimates. Ironically, the hurricane even stopped the New York stock exchange from functioning.
	The UK has led the way in using carbon budgets to manage its progress on reducing domestic emissions and it is time to apply that approach to the financial markets and align the energy sector with climate targets. Otherwise, we are in danger of allowing a lack of proper financial oversight and regulation to condemn us to temperature rises of as much as 6°—a figure that was even reinforced in a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers just last month.
	The financial markets are an indicator of where the energy industry is heading and at present it is clear that the diversion of capital investment away from carbon-intensive energy sources towards clean energy technologies is not occurring fast enough. Unless the financial system starts to respond with some urgency, it is increasingly exposed to the potential for a drastic correction to reduce emissions—in other words, the risk of the carbon bubble bursting.
	The UK economy is particularly exposed because of the global role played by our financial sector in raising capital. London’s strong reputation attracts companies from all around the world and has resulted in it becoming one of the global centres for natural resources companies. Indeed, the UK has a much greater exposure to climate change risk through London’s financial market than it does from its own domestic emissions. Carbon Tracker analysis shows that at the end of 2010 the coal, oil and gas listed in London was the equivalent of 105.5 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. That is 10 times the UK’s domestic carbon budget of around 10 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide between 2011 and 2050.
	Very few of these reserves are actually located in the UK. For example, one third of the coal is in Australia, with major reserves also in Indonesia, South Africa and Botswana. Only a tiny proportion of the coal listed in London is actually in the UK—about 0.36%. This means that investors, such as pension funds, which put their money into so-called UK funds are in fact exposing themselves to risks around the world. For example, there are increasing constraints on the markets for coal across the world, including carbon taxes in Australia and South Africa, the EU emissions trading scheme, carbon intensity targets in China, mercury regulations in the United States, and water availability in India. Moreover, renewable technologies are becoming more advanced and more competitive on price all the time. That has led to increasing uncertainty about the viability of new coal power generation in a number of markets.
	All sectors go through changes, which can result in obsolete technologies and stranded assets. The communications industry, for example, has seen a rapid switch to mobile communications. Similarly, traditional photographic equipment has been superseded by digital photography and multipurpose devices that can take pictures and share them with others. We need a similar revolution in the energy sector, which brings through new technologies and delivers the green investment and development opportunities that investors and Governments are seeking. And the markets need to reflect carbon constraints and the reality of fossil fuels as stranded assets. If they fail to do so, as Al Gore argues, fossil fuel reserves will be the next sub-prime crisis.
	We therefore urgently need action better to prepare the financial markets for this systemic risk and to prevent a repeat of the recent financial crisis. In the first instance this is about ensuring that the financial system
	at least starts to consider the risks associated with those so-called stranded assets. HSBC estimates that carbon constraints post-2020 could impact valuations of coal assets, for example, by as much as 44%, with the actual stock impact determined by company exposure to coal. This could translate into a downside risk of between 7% and 15%, according to HSBC, adding a new dimension to risk assessment for both corporate strategy and anyone looking to avoid further economic crisis.
	Around one third of the value of the FTSE 100 is currently made up of oil, gas and mining companies, with investors tied into the composition of the markets. That can be directly, through the use of tracker funds, which mirror the largest companies listed on the exchange, for example the FTSE 100 Index, or it can be indirectly, by using such indices as a benchmark for fund performance, which results in funds closely matching the sector composition of the benchmark. As a result many investors end up following the market, owing to the herd mentality of the investment system.
	The Kay review commissioned by the Government found that equity markets are subject to structural flaws which prevent the management of investments from reflecting the long-term investment horizon of many pension funds. John Kay recommended that metrics should be directly relevant to the creation of long-term value in companies. Until the markets are able to demonstrate that they have fully integrated such risks, it is clear that they will be subject to the dangers of financial instability. Given that climate change is an enormously important long-term systemic risk, as well as a massive market failure, it should surely be seen as a key test of whether markets have adequate information and are functioning efficiently.
	The Government have already taken an important first step towards giving markets some of the information they need to deal effectively with climate-associated risk, by introducing greenhouse gas reporting as part of the disclosure requirements for large listed companies. This puts emissions information alongside the material financial data provided for the investor audience. That is a useful first step, but it is important that these emissions data also pass the materiality test, and are of use to investors. However, the current proposal is for a one-size-fits-all approach, which will not give investors information about just how exposed a company is as the result of increasing constraints on carbon intensive activities. Whether a mining company has energy efficient offices or an oil company reduces its business travel provides no material information for shareholders. Good housekeeping by companies whose core business is increasing the production of billions of tonnes of coal and oil simply will not deliver the scale and pace of change required. What investors need is a forward-looking indicator of how the stock levels of fossil fuels compare with the future market for the companies’ products—coal, oil and gas.
	Therefore, I propose that the Government should demonstrate true leadership by requiring extractive companies to report the greenhouse gas emissions potential of their reserves. I recognise that it is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that leads on greenhouse gas reporting, but I hope that the Minister can assure me that the Department for Energy and
	Climate Change is actively involved in discussions about the shape of the proposals and that he is using every opportunity to press for an approach that will demonstrate the UK’s commitment to global leadership and protect our economy from the threats posed by the carbon bubble.
	The Climate Change Act 2008 draws its powers from the Companies Act 2006, and section 416(4) of that Act allows the Secretary of State to
	“make provision by regulations as to other matters that must be disclosed in a directors’ report.”
	Given the significance of the carbon dioxide potential of reserves, surely extractive companies must be required to report that vital information at the earliest opportunity. That information can then be collated by the regulator and the level of carbon dioxide in reserves listed on our stock exchange can be monitored. These data should in turn be considered and reported by the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee. The committee is charged with identifying, monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks, with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system.
	A number of actors from the financial markets, including Aviva, HSBC and PricewaterhouseCoopers, have already made representations to the Bank’s executive director for financial stability on that matter. Without a thermometer taking the temperature of the market, investors have no idea if the systemic risk is being managed or if the situation is getting worse. Given that most investors are tied to the composition of the market, it must fall to the regulator to take action on that kind of systemic risk and mandate disclosure. London has a reputation for strong corporate governance and transparency, which that measure would maintain.
	According to the International Accounting Standards Board, the performance of an organisation is affected by the economic resources it controls, its financial structure, liquidity and solvency and its capacity to adapt to changes in the environment in which it operates. Financial performance is, fairly obviously, an organisation’s ability to earn a profit from the resources that have been invested in it. It also takes into account the actual and potential impacts on performance, viability and earnings of the activities of stakeholders and of systemic risks.
	Requiring disclosure of the greenhouse gas emissions potential of reserves is therefore a matter of helping directors to fulfil the duty to report on what might affect the future performance of their company. Boards should be required to explain how their business model is compatible with future scenarios. Directors should be required to explain what level of climate change they are assuming in their strategy and which technologies they assume will be in place by what date. For example, we need to know whether the management of mining and oil companies currently assume that the world will continue on the pathway to 6° of warming.
	Many business leaders have made statements supporting the 2° framework and emissions targets. They need to explain how such a position is compatible with their current business model that includes fossil fuel assets. It is clear that business as usual will not prevent dangerous climate change; on the contrary, it is much more likely to lead to catastrophic climate change. Therefore, the Government need to create a framework that facilitates change and protects the economy.
	This is probably a good point at which to explain briefly why carbon capture and storage is not the answer to the challenges I have outlined. CCS would obviously primarily be applied only to major coal and gas generation point sources of emission—power stations. It will have no impact on the oil-related emissions generated by transport. Furthermore, given the huge difference between the tight carbon budget and the huge fossil fuel reserves, even widespread CCS would not close the gap sufficiently.
	If companies are using a business model based on CCS, they should be required to explain clearly their assumptions about time scales and cost. The International Energy Agency has indicated that commercially available CCS is not likely to come in until after 2030. That leaves around two decades of unmitigated emissions if business continues along the current trajectory, with the carbon budget well and truly spent before CCS can come in. Even at that point, it could be prohibitively expensive to retrofit to existing plants and CCS would primarily be added to new facilities. Unless investors are taking a particularly long-term view, they will not be factoring that into their assessments of a company’s value—there is too much uncertainty. Is it realistic to expect pension funds, for example, to put their money behind a technology that is not yet proven commercially and which even the industry accepts is decades away? If the future viability of coal companies is dependent on CCS in the near future, investors should know about it.
	DECC has developed the capital markets climate initiative. That recognises the important role of public sector action in mobilising private capital and encouraging new markets in low carbon investments. However, at present the initiative is completely missing the other side of the equation; there is a need to change the frameworks around the high carbon end of the spectrum to drive capital towards the low carbon end. By starting to address the full picture of capital markets and climate change, the Government can redress the imbalance.
	By providing better information, the Government can facilitate active shareholders challenging where capital is being allocated and help secure the significant shift in investment needed to create a green, resilient and sustainable economy. Furthermore, they can avoid picking up the otherwise inevitable tab for damage to infrastructure, property and agriculture, and consumers subject to increased volatility of commodity prices. Those are costs that neither the Government nor individuals can afford.
	DECC’s own policies, of course, should also be helping to make markets more resilient in the face of climate change, not less so. Yet tomorrow sees the Second Reading of the Government’s much anticipated Energy Bill, which creates a legal framework to lock the UK into expensive, high carbon gas generation for decades to come. The Bill not only runs counter to scientific advice on the urgency of action needed to avoid irreversible climate change and prevent devastating global warming, but omits a target to reflect the independent expert advice of the Committee on Climate Change—that emissions from the power sector should be virtually zero by 2030.
	We will discuss that issue in the context of the Second Reading of the Energy Bill tomorrow, so now is not the time to go into further detail. Suffice it to say that we clearly need an overall impact assessment to evaluate
	the health, soundness and vulnerabilities of the financial system as we proceed with low carbon transition. The Treasury will need to take a lead on much of that, but DECC has an important and key role as well. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how he intends to play it.

John Hayes: I am delighted to respond to this debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing it.
	It seems to me that the hon. Lady’s argument is based on three fundamental misassumptions, and because of that much of her case is invalidated. The misassumptions are these. First, there is the notion that carbon-intensive industries and other parts of the economy that rely on them are at a peculiar and specific risk. The hon. Lady made that case—I shall put it as generously as I can—with confidence. However, it would be a hard case to prove and she brought very little evidence apart from the letter, sent to Mervyn King, the chairman of the Financial Policy Committee at the Bank of England, that she quoted at the beginning of her speech.
	Let me deal specifically with that letter. The hon. Lady is right to say that it was signed by a number of people. The Bank’s current position is that the interim Financial Policy Committee is aware of the issue and should the FPC conclude at any point that carbon assets do pose a systemic risk to the financial system, it will report and explain that risk in its six-monthly financial stability report. It has not done so at this stage, because it has not come to the hon. Lady’s conclusion—that there is that particular risk—on which the rest of her argument is predicated.
	The hon. Lady’s second fundamental misassumption—

Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister give way?

John Hayes: I will, but I do not want to do so too liberally; the hon. Lady will appreciate that time is short.

Caroline Lucas: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he explain whether he thinks it is a misassumption to state that only one fifth of known fossil fuel reserves can be burned and their emissions released if we are to stay within the carbon budgets? That is not predicated on any letters, but on the figures coming from some of the foremost climate institutes and others.

John Hayes: But this is about the connection between that fact and the effect that it has on the financial climate in which these organisations operate, on their stability, and on their attractiveness to investors. That is the myth. The hon. Lady’s argument is based not on the bald fact but on the connection between it and other things.
	The second misassumption that underpins the hon. Lady’s analysis—I am afraid that I must put it this way; I always try to be generous, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker—is that she assumes a superior grasp, or understanding, of the patterns of investment, the basis on which investors operate, and the climate and
	modelling that they take into account in making these large-scale investment decisions, than I would have the temerity to claim. I do not want to lecture her—I say this as a paternal bit of advice, really—but a degree of humility is required in these matters. I am by no means wedded to the idea of the market, but I do take the view that the market has an important role to play in signalling to us and to the business community what investors believe to be attractive and unattractive. I therefore do not claim the kind of insight, prophetic powers and extraordinary understanding that the hon. Lady clearly does.
	The third misassumption on which the hon. Lady’s performance was based was her extraordinary ability, so it seems, to predict likely changes in the availability of technologies such as carbon capture and storage, changes in the patterns of demand for energy, and changes in cost and price. It is true—perhaps this is where we can reach a synthesis—that in acknowledging that almost all we know about the future is what we do not know, we cannot simply therefore take no strategic view or no long-term decisions. Indeed, the Energy Bill, which she mentioned, is very much about trying to take long-term decisions. However, it is best to do so on the basis that those decisions are not framed around a definitive view of what is bound to occur but an understanding that the creation of a highly responsive system will allow us to deal with those things that are, by their nature, unpredictable, or certainly so in their detail and extent.
	Therefore, for the hon. Lady to claim that “carbon capture and storage is not the answer”, to use her precise words, is a pretty bold—some might say a pretty extraordinary—claim. Of course it is true that carbon capture and storage is still at the beginning of its journey and that it will take some time for it to reach the scale that will allow it to become commercially viable. She knows, however, that the Government have invested in a £1 billion competition, that we are backing four projects in that competition, and that they offer significant potential. She will also know, because she studies these matters assiduously, that the taskforce we set up to look at cost reduction for carbon capture and storage concluded just a fortnight or so ago in its interim report—a considered report that I recommend to her if she has not seen it—that carbon capture and storage could become available and commercially viable much more quickly than she has said; it speaks of the early 2020s. I recommend to her the graphic illustration of that argument in the document, which shows that carbon capture and storage is not only becoming technologically proven but is more widely admired than perhaps she wants, because once one accepts that fossil fuels and their effects can be mitigated, the rest of her argument becomes less plausible. Those fundamental misassumptions rather colour her approach to these matters.
	There are further problems. I challenge the idea that investment in fossil fuels and the move to a low carbon economy are fundamentally incompatible, and I believe that the market is better able to assess for itself how to manage its assets and investment decisions and that the Government’s Energy Bill provides investment, clarity and certainty. The hon. Lady will understand that the
	point about long-term contracted prices is that they lower the cost of capital and create an environment for investors that is, by its nature, more certain. Not only do I think all of those things, but I think, less apologetically —not that I have been particularly apologetic so far—that the mix of technologies that we believe is necessary to deliver energy security is not only a guarantee that, in the unpredictable world that I have charted, doors will be left open that the hon. Lady would want to shut, but is more likely to deliver the kind of secure, efficient and effective future that will allow us to be confident that supply can meet demand in an affordable way.
	I think there is some agreement, in general terms, on this subject across the House, although there will be differences of opinion with regard to detail. I do not want to anticipate too much of tomorrow’s debate, but the Opposition have made some plausible arguments about demand reduction, market entry, liquidity and regulation, and they will no doubt want to articulate their case tomorrow. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), the shadow Minister, is in his place. Far be it for me to write his speech for him, but I have no doubt that those things will be in it.
	In those terms, I think that the hon. Lady is not only outside the mainstream, but, arguably, on the very fringe of the debate. I do not want that to be the case, because, as I have said, I am generous and am approaching the issue as paternally as I can. Dickens wrote about
	“a heart that never hardens, and a temper that never tires, and a touch that never hurts.”
	I do not want to hurt the hon. Lady.

Caroline Lucas: How disappointed I am with the Minister’s response. I base my statements on expert advice from financial analysts, university academics and climate experts, so his patronising response is particularly misplaced. We may disagree about the precise time that CCS will come in, but the very fact that there is uncertainty surely means that financial markets should be addressing it.
	On the Minister’s point that the Greens are somehow on the fringe, we have been told that for 30 years. We were told that when we started talking about the ozone layer and about climate change, and eventually the other parties caught up. I hope that he catches up soon, too, because if he does not the future looks pretty grim.

John Hayes: The hon. Lady knows that the Committee on Climate Change has recognised in its recent progress report—I know that she takes that seriously and that she will have read it—that we are on track to meet our first three carbon budgets, which amount to a 35% reduction in emissions by 2020. She knows that, as a result of the levy control framework negotiations that led to the bargain between the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Treasury, we have made £7.6 billion available for investment in renewable technology, carbon capture and storage and, at the back end of that period, nuclear power, which she acknowledged recently as salient, because it is a low carbon technology.

Caroline Lucas: indicated  dissent .

John Hayes: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but it is, of course, a low carbon technology. All I am saying is that a degree of humility in these matters is important.
	That is not patronising—far from it. It is about acknowledging that we want a system that is robust but flexible; that takes a strategic view but that does so in a measured way; that is balanced, not extreme. We want a system that allows investors to choose from technologies that can stand up to the kinds of tests that the market would expect. That means that the technologies need to deliver and that they need to be resilient—technologically sound and commercially viable. I believe that that can be true of carbon capture and storage and of renewables, as scale grows and costs fall.
	As I have said, in my view, ours is a balanced, measured, moderate and humble approach. Before the hon. Lady speaks tomorrow, I hope she will think again about the Government’s position.
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).